Things I am Thankful For...

[G-spotter]

If you were being like the Economist you'd neither use Jordan as a representative sample of all Muslim lands nor confuse homicides that the state of Jordan could specifically determine were "honor killings" and actually reported as such with the total number of women killed by men for any reason, but that's beside the point.

 

There's a significant difference between random violence between individuals that's a contravention of both the prevailing legal and moral standards, and violence that's sanctioned by both the law, the prevailing culture, or both. Once the Supreme Court or another equivalent body issues a sentence which condemns a woman to being stoned to death for adultery because she can't produce four male witnesses who will testify that the rape was not consensual, then you will have a point. As things stand now, you are left in the position of trying to argue the impossible, which is that the odd state sanctioned stoning-to-death aside, women in Muslim lands enjoy the same level of personal freedoms and legal protection that they do in the West.

 

You are clearly too smart to literally believe that, and I think if you ever impregnate a woman and have a daughter, and had to choose whether she'd be raised in a Western country and subject to Western law and tradition, or raised in a Muslim country and subject to Sharia for the rest of the life, there's no doubt about what you'd choose, so you are clearly just making an insincere argument on behalf of Islam's treatment of women to satisfy some other impulse or agenda.

 

 

If the level of violence against women is essentially the same in Muslim and non-Muslim countries (which you haven't come up with any statistics or attempt to disprove, probably because you can't) then your argument devolves to "Violence against women in Muslim countries is bad, but it's OK when we do it in the west" .

[sexual_chocolate]

wrong. jayb's delivery might cause you to believe this, and i think he may be deluded by some smug sense of superiority, but generally speaking, we in the west have structural cultural legal mechanisms in place that support the rights of women. this is lacking in many other countries (iraq had a progressive legal system protecting its women and minorities, but these have been completely removed as of late).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If you were being like the Economist you'd neither use Jordan as a representative sample of all Muslim lands nor confuse homicides that the state of Jordan could specifically determine were "honor killings" and actually reported as such with the total number of women killed by men for any reason, but that's beside the point.

 

There's a significant difference between random violence between individuals that's a contravention of both the prevailing legal and moral standards, and violence that's sanctioned by both the law, the prevailing culture, or both. Once the Supreme Court or another equivalent body issues a sentence which condemns a woman to being stoned to death for adultery because she can't produce four male witnesses who will testify that the rape was not consensual, then you will have a point. As things stand now, you are left in the position of trying to argue the impossible, which is that the odd state sanctioned stoning-to-death aside, women in Muslim lands enjoy the same level of personal freedoms and legal protection that they do in the West.

 

You are clearly too smart to literally believe that, and I think if you ever impregnate a woman and have a daughter, and had to choose whether she'd be raised in a Western country and subject to Western law and tradition, or raised in a Muslim country and subject to Sharia for the rest of the life, there's no doubt about what you'd choose, so you are clearly just making an insincere argument on behalf of Islam's treatment of women to satisfy some other impulse or agenda.

 

 

If the level of violence against women is essentially the same in Muslim and non-Muslim countries (which you haven't come up with any statistics or attempt to disprove, probably because you can't) then your argument devolves to "Violence against women in Muslim countries is bad, but it's OK when we do it in the west" .

 

dude, you're fucking nuts. my advice is smoke less weed and pull your head out of your Canuck ass.

 

[sexual_chocolate]

hey kaskadhfihkshkh, perhaps if you stated why you think he's nuts, you might not seem like a nut yourself (if it matters to you).

[JayB]

"If the level of violence against women is essentially the same in Muslim and non-Muslim countries (which you haven't come up with any statistics or attempt to disprove, probably because you can't) then your argument devolves to "Violence against women in Muslim countries is bad, but it's OK when we do it in the west"

 

That's a big if, which you are no more able to prove with statistics than I am to refute it with statistics, unless you are prepared to say that the statistics concerning such violence that come out of Sudan et al are as robust and reliable as those coming out of the West, which is a transparently absurd claim.

 

The reason why you have persistently avoided my *actual* argument, and chose to rebut points that you are pretending that I made instead, because you realize that you cannot under any circumstances make a factually correct, logically sound, or sane argument on behalf of the notion that Islam as an institution - which recognizes no distinction between the religious and the secular, nor the societies that its adherents have produced have produced a legal or cultural environment in which women enjoy anything like the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed throughout West. Your claim that violence against women in the West has anything like the legal or cultural sanction that it enjoys under Sharia law is as transparently false as the claim that two plus two equals five.

 

Yes, there's violence against women everywhere, but the cultural and legal prohibitions against it vary massively from one culture to the next, and there is no other world-culture that I am aware of in which grown men feel that it is both their cultural and religious duty to murder their daughters or sisters for the simple act of unsupervised contact with the opposite sex in order to restore their family's "honor." Why you choose to ignore this fact, much less argue on behalf of a system of values which embraces this and many other relics from a barbarous past is unclear. The fact that you'd never actually permit any woman you care about to be subject to either the culture or the religion that perpetuates honor-killings says it all, and any blathering you chose to do in defense of either the said culture or the religion means nothing in comparison.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

hey kaskadhfihkshkh, perhaps if you stated why you think he's nuts, you might not seem like a nut yourself (if it matters to you).

 

to suggest that the US is equivalent to Iran, Pakistan or any other third world Islamo-extremist-Fuckistan shithole evinces either complete insanity or intentional trolling. neither is worthy of my time to "serious debate".

 

[G-spotter]

if you were a woman, and you thought the statistical probability that a man might kill you was lower in the West than in the Middle East, you might be wrong.

[The_Rooster]

if you were a rooster, and you thought the statistical probability that a human might eat you was lower in the West than in the Middle East, you might be wrong.

 

You got that right, buddy.

[sexual_chocolate]

i think dru may have been put off by mr. jayb's typical smug delivery and inability to understand evolving contexts, thereby finding himself emotionally charged and as a result unable himself to respond in a more well-rounded fashion.

 

inflexible right-wing authoritarian square meets emotive canuck. results don't vary.

[JayB]

That's rich coming from a charter member of the Chavista fan-club.

[sexual_chocolate]

if you were a woman, and you thought the statistical probability that a man might kill you was lower in the West than in the Middle East, you might be wrong.

 

that's a good point, but wouldn't you rather be in a country that had legal frameworks that supported your rights?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i think dru may have been put off by mr. jayb's typical smug delivery and inability to understand evolving contexts, thereby finding himself emotionally charged and as a result unable himself to respond in a more well-rounded fashion.

 

inflexible right-wing authoritarian square meets emotive canuck. results don't vary.

 

Jay strikes me as more libertarian than "authoritarian". And I see quite a few "authoritarian" lefties on this site, who want to use gov't to force their will on the rest of us - economically, legally, and through outright intimidation.

[The_Rooster]

if you were a woman, and you thought the statistical probability that a man might kill you was lower in the West than in the Middle East, you might be wrong.

 

that's a good point, but wouldn't you rather be in a country that had legal frameworks that supported your rights?

 

Does such a place exist for me?

[TREETOAD]

Women are the root of all evil

Women are the root of all evil

Women are the root of all evil

 

Oh....was that out loud??

[sexual_chocolate]

That's rich coming from a charter member of the Chavista fan-club.

 

chavez seems like a pretty hip dude to me.

[sexual_chocolate]

And I see quite a few "authoritarian" lefties on this site, who want to use gov't to force their will on the rest of us - economically, legally, and through outright intimidation.

 

can you mention a couple of these economic, legal, and intimidative governmental actions that the lefties here support?

[JayB]

1."chavez seems like a pretty hip dude to me."

 

2. Which is why its hilarious that you of all people would describe my personal convictions as "authoritarian."

 

That help?

[sexual_chocolate]

?

[sexual_chocolate]

hip as in he wears rad clothes. with it, man.

[archenemy]

wrong. jayb's delivery might cause you to believe this, and i think he may be deluded by some smug sense of superiority, but generally speaking, we in the west have structural cultural legal mechanisms in place that support the rights of women. this is lacking in many other countries (iraq had a progressive legal system protecting its women and minorities, but these have been completely removed as of late).

Yes, we do have mechanisms that support the rights of women. But those which are supposed to be protecting us from men don't work.

[tvashtarkatena]

To argue that a woman is better off in a middle eastern country that condones chastity killing verses a country like the US by comparing the statistical chance of her dying through familial violence is ludicrous. The statistics may, in fact, favor some muslim countries over the U.S. in that regard, that's not my argument. Rather, the U.S., unlike the muslim countries under discussion, neither tolerates nor condones familial violence towards women. We have a problem, to be sure, but we also have a mechanism and willingness to punish the crime. I would think this makes our situation considerably more hopeful for women than our Middle Eastern counterparts.

 

Plus, women here can pack heat and blow the fucker's balls off, if so desired.

[olyclimber]

rwEwLDR61bo

[archenemy]

Read above thread. (pssst...I think she is referring to Christianity, though it could probably be Islam too)

 

 

1. Women are so evil, they shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole

 

 

Ahh....someone must have left the Song of Solomon out of her Bible then

Oh please. One book about sex (which let's not forget is necessary to produce sons) in the middle of the Bible just doesn't counterbalance the constant anti-woman messages throughout the rest of the book. And yes, I've read it all the way through. More than once.

[olyclimber]

they didn't have sex back in those days

[sexual_chocolate]

1."chavez seems like a pretty hip dude to me."

 

2. Which is why its hilarious that you of all people would describe my personal convictions as "authoritarian."

 

That help?

 

you got my fashion clarification, right?

 

and it's got nothing to do with your personal convictions, which we all know are about egalitarian ideals.