I hope this official explanation mitigates things somewhat:
"'It is notable that this kind of punishment has rarely been implemented in Iran and various means and remedies must be probed and exhausted to finally come up with such a punishment,' the embassy said."
See? So only if counseling and steel chastity belts protocols don't fix the problem first would they be forced to pelt women with skipping stones. A wise and judicial people. I mean sometimes you've done everything you can and yet there she is, still out there in public with freewill and a functioning sex organ. It's unthinkable.
At least she acted alone. No male would ever commit such an act.
"She was convicted of adultery in 2006 and forced to confess after being subjected to 99 lashes, human rights lawyer Mostafaei told CNN. She later recanted that confession and has denied wrongdoing.
Her conviction was based not on evidence but on the determination of three out of five judges, Mostafaei said. She has asked forgiveness from the court but the judges refused to grant clemency.
Iran's supreme court upheld the conviction in 2007."
Goya's Ghosts anyone?
"Did you do it?"
"No!"
Whack!
"Did you do it?"
"No!"
Whack!
"Did you do it?"
"Yes! Yes, I did it!"
Oh, you bring up a most excellent point. She should not be stoned for adultery, you know, 'cause we rarely do that. But should she be stoned for witchcraft?
I was trying to cross post on another thread and it ate my offering. Oh drat and bother.
But here it is again, out of order.
At least she acted alone. No male would ever commit such an act.
Truer words were never spoken. And when men are a part of such... unsanctioned couplings... it's a clear case bewitchment!
At least she acted alone. No male would ever commit such an act.
I wonder what the penalty is for adulterous men in Iran?
At least she acted alone. No male would ever commit such an act.I wonder what the penalty is for adulterous men in Iran?
Death by high-fiving?
At least she acted alone. No male would ever commit such an act.
As I understand it, Shariah Law requires a woman who claims to have been raped to get two witnesses to testify to seeing it happen. Presumably one is the rapist and the other is his buddy who didn't feel like having a go that day. If she does not present the witnesses, she is deemed to have confessed to adultery and is thus liable for stoning.
Of course this kind of barbarism is hardly unique to Islam. The use of torture to extract false confessions has a wide, multicultural pedigree. So does stoning.
I wonder what the penalty is for adulterous men in Iran?
Death by high-fiving?
A slap on the wrist and a cigarette?
Demand for a full confession in a room full of leering detectives... rife with sordid details and miming.
Of course this kind of barbarism is hardly unique to Islam. The use of torture to extract false confessions has a wide, multicultural pedigree. So does stoning.
Acknowledged. I know there is plenty going on in the world deserving of outrage and that my small poodle brain will completely forget about this tomorrow. I simply do not have the energy to feel outrage 24/7.
So where do I draw the line?
Of course this kind of barbarism is hardly unique to Islam. The use of torture to extract false confessions has a wide, multicultural pedigree. So does stoning.Acknowledged. I know there is plenty going on in the world deserving of outrage and that my small poodle brain will completely forget about this tomorrow. I simply do not have the energy to feel outrage 24/7.
So where do I draw the line?
It wasn't meant as a rebuke to you at all. I just felt it wise for myself that having brought up the outrages of a different, and little-loved, culture that I also at least briefly comment on those of my own. I had a couple of very specific examples in mind, which I'm sure you can imagine, but decided to skip the flamewar for the moment.
I don't have the energy to be outraged 24/7 either, but I sometimes think I should.
I, very much, wanted to use this thread to take a shot at a certain segment of our populace. So I can understand somewhat where you are coming from.
I agree in that I think we should be outraged all the time at what happens in the world we share.
I, very much, wanted to use this thread to take a shot at a certain segment of our populace. So I can understand somewhat where you are coming from.
Maybe they'll twig to the bait anyway. :)
Maybe they'll twig to the bait anyway. :)
Call me an idealist. I am beginning to think the best way to bring about change is to find common ground instead of polarizing.
I will let you know how it is working out. sighs
Maybe they'll twig to the bait anyway. :)I am beginning to think the best way to bring about change is to find common ground instead of polarizing.
I've come to the opposite conclusion.
I've come to the opposite conclusion.
And you see no danger in becoming what you detest?
I've come to the opposite conclusion.And you see no danger in becoming what you detest?
I can't imagine wanting to just invite them in and let them integrate (especially not in an open door manner). Poisoning the well and all that.
…and the opposition maintains the same mind-set. So do we just kill everyone who does not agree with us? That is a bit extreme…how about we just kill everyone who does not agree with us on really important issues.
It is not that I do not understand where you are coming from. I think everyone can. It just seems there is a long history of polarization not working for the most part. I suppose you could argue civil wars 'worked', but I am not sure I want to go down that road.
I've come to the opposite conclusion.And you see no danger in becoming what you detest?
When one of my major principles is the avoidance of hypocrisy, not really. That another is non-violence pretty much seals the deal.
I think a great deal of common ground seeking actually impedes the frank exchange of views and attempts to resolve, or even honestly approach, very serious and fundamental differences in the body politic. There are differences in value structures that themselves are a grave problem and require some kind of arrangement for peaceful coexistence, and we're not going to get there by trying to act as though deep down we all fundamentally agreed.
I do not have an identical value structure to people with whom I have serious disagreements. Neither do you. Nor does anybody else. If we did, we would not have those disagreements or would resolve them trivially. In fact, we often have value structures that are diametrically opposed and we may as well admit it.
But no, you're not going to achieve a lot of change by compromising with yourself, then compromising with the other guy, then compromising some more. That's how change is prevented. If you don't believe me, look at the history of America's single most intractable political issue: white supremacy. Decades of compromise did not create any change. In fact, the willingness to compromise just led to Slave Power moving the goalposts further and further and further, continually inventing new offenses which were absolutely intolerable and thus new grounds on which it must be absolutely deferred to. This eventually reached the point where an outspoken white supremacist, who was at the very most a moderate on the question of slavery, was deemed so utterly outrageous and unacceptable that before he even took office violent insurrection had begun. Take it from the man himself:
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
That's what decades of compromise got.
That's what decades of compromise got.
You may have a point, except I am compelled to disagree with you for fear of compromising.
That's what decades of compromise got.You may have a point, except I am compelled to disagree with you for fear of compromising.
*applause*
*applause*
Care to take this to another thread. What you have said has struck a nerve with me.
*applause*Care to take this to another thread. What you have said has struck a nerve with me.
I hope it's a good kind of nerve. :) <-Thread made.
At least she acted alone. No male would ever commit such an act.As I understand it, Shariah Law requires a woman who claims to have been raped to get two witnesses to testify to seeing it happen. Presumably one is the rapist and the other is his buddy who didn't feel like having a go that day. If she does not present the witnesses, she is deemed to have confessed to adultery and is thus liable for stoning.
Of course this kind of barbarism is hardly unique to Islam. The use of torture to extract false confessions has a wide, multicultural pedigree. So does stoning.
So in a similar event, if CF robs me and you watch. I have to get CF to admit he robbed me, and you(his buddy) to agree, but if CF committed the crime alone I am just out of luck.
Edit: I feel the need to go to an Islamic chat room and have a few conversations to see someone try to logically defend that nonsense.
It is amazing what the human mind can rationalize.
Quran doesn't call for stoning, experts insist.
Because the stoning part is in the Sunnah, the sayings and examples of Muhammad, which along with the Quran is the basis of Sharia law.
Quran doesn't call for stoning, experts insist.Because the stoning part is in the Sunnah, the sayings and examples of Muhammad, which along with the Quran is the basis of Sharia law.
Most likely, but the whole Islamic system of sayings and such is so complex and so disputed that depending on ones viewpoint almost anything is possible. Much of it comes from oral tradition and was not written down until around the 900's when the model of Islamic scholars and laws based from their scholarship really began to flourish. After this point we see a legal system develop out of the rulings of such scholars.
If god himself told me to my face, I would still question it based on its utter lack of compassion. If Allah wants them stoned so bad, he can do it himself.
Most likely, but the whole Islamic system of sayings and such is so complex and so disputed that depending on ones viewpoint almost anything is possible. Much of it comes from oral tradition and was not written down until around the 900's when the model of Islamic scholars and laws based from their scholarship really began to flourish. After this point we see a legal system develop out of the rulings of such scholars.Quran doesn't call for stoning, experts insist.Because the stoning part is in the Sunnah, the sayings and examples of Muhammad, which along with the Quran is the basis of Sharia law.
Which if you look at it is very similar to the early christian church and their rather barbaric laws. Burning an entire village because of one supposed witch or wholesale slaughter of "heathens" that didn't believe as they did.
I'm not defending or condemming either religion in any way just pointing out that theres nothing new under the sun. Besides don't you know a execution every now and then keeps the populace in line.
If god himself told me to my face, I would still question it based on its utter lack of compassion. If Allah wants them stoned so bad, he can do it himself.
Isn't that what hashish{sp} is for? ;-)
Which if you look at it is very similar to the early christian church and their rather barbaric laws. Burning an entire village because of one supposed witch or wholesale slaughter of "heathens" that didn't believe as they did.
I don't really agree. First off if we say early church then I start think of the period up until maybe the 400's and during this period the Church does not really have much in the way of political power to pull this off. Later there are certainly examples of bad behavior on the part of people apparently acting in the name of the Christian God, no question. Still there really where some pretty fundamental differences between the methodology of how Islam decided what their religion said on any given topic and how Christianity did so. I suppose one can go with Religion = Bad but its not a very nuanced view of the topic.
Of particular interest is the various splits in the Christian Church based upon questions such as Jesus position in the hierarchy of heaven or whether he was fundamentally human and received divinity or was fundamentally divine and given human form. These kinds of arguments significantly impacted the development of Christianity, caused major splits - some never healed. Its worthwhile to compare and contrast that to Islam where the only major split is between Sunni's and Shia's and its in regards not to the nature of God but to what amounts to a succession crisis.
This impacts history fairly significantly probably even to this day. In Christianity there tends to be power struggles over what Gods views and values are while in Islam the power struggle tends to be over who gets to carry out (i.e. who gets to rule) what are usually a clearer set of views and values.
Christianity is usually more divisive but the same things that make it divisive also allow it to more easily be adapted to the modern world. Islam is clearer - but in being centered around a more comprehensive text its much more difficult to 'update' it out of the Middle Ages. Which of course has become hugely divisive within the last 100 years or so with the split being with those that want to live with more modern values and those that feel that such values simply are not reasonably on the table.
|
Of course this kind of barbarism is hardly unique to Islam. The use of torture to extract false confessions has a wide, multicultural pedigree. So does stoning.Acknowledged. I know there is plenty going on in the world deserving of outrage and that my small poodle brain will completely forget about this tomorrow. I simply do not have the energy to feel outrage 24/7.
So where do I draw the line?
It wasn't meant as a rebuke to you at all. I just felt it wise for myself that having brought up the outrages of a different, and little-loved, culture that I also at least briefly comment on those of my own. I had a couple of very specific examples in mind, which I'm sure you can imagine, but decided to skip the flamewar for the moment.
I don't have the energy to be outraged 24/7 either, but I sometimes think I should.
Gotta love moral relativism.
"So, Iran stones women to death and mass murders homosexuals in soccer stadiums. That is exactly as bad as banning gay marriage."
So, what you're saying is,
Gotta love moral relativism.
"So, it's bad if Iran persecutes gays, but OK if we do, as long as we're not quite as blatant about it."
Naw, I know you don't think that. If Charlie Manson kills a bunch of people, that in no way gives Vanilla Ice permission to beat his wife ("it's less bad!"), for example. Moral relativism would be giving Ice the free pass because we dig David Bowie.
|
|
So, what you're saying is,
Naw, I know you don't think that. If Charlie Manson kills a bunch of people, that in no way gives Vanilla Ice permission to beat his wife ("it's less bad!"), for example. Moral relativism would be giving Ice the free pass because we dig David Bowie.Gotta love moral relativism.
"So, it's bad if Iran persecutes gays, but OK if we do, as long as we're not quite as blatant about it."
Too simplistic by half. Western culture has been moving away from its past, maybe not fast enough for some, but it has, and will eventually get where it needs to be. Sorry s+&& doesn't happen overnight.
The Middle East has been perma-stuck on stupid for going on 1300 years now, with zero end in sight. And, I could post thousands of links of Muslims exporting that stuck in the stone age mentality here and in Europe. You know this.
Or, were you kidding in your compromise post on the other thread?
Edit: Consider this: Twenty years ago, there were ZERO states that allowed gay marriage or civil unions. And sodomy laws were still on the books in most states. Now, eleven states have gay marriage or civil unions, and thousands of companies extend benefits to domestic partners. In that time, Islam has gotten even more radical in the Middle East, and Muslims in Europe and the United States have demanded more and more concessions to live under Sharia.
The only nation in the Middle East that allows gay civil unions and equal rights for women is Israel. But they're evil Apartheid having, genocidal evil bastards, even though they are, again, the only nation in the Middle East that extends full equal rights to women, gays, and the 1.4 million Palestinian Arab Muslims who are full Israeli citizens mostly living in mixed Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Secular neighborhoods.
So, yes, moral relativism is a sham, and, frankly, screw that noise you're spewing. Again, we're making progress, they're stuck on stupid. QED.
All of the progress we've made, and they haven't, is because people keep pushing for it to get better, not because of some magical positive vibe in the air. If we say, "well, Muslims are worse, so we can do whatever we want now," then all that progress stops cold, and goes into remission. I don't get to kill one person and get away scott-free just because Ted Bundy killed more than one -- that's total non-logic.
|
|
Or, were you kidding in your compromise post on the other thread?Not at all. But just because one group is bad, doesn't mean that everyone else gets a free pass -- if that's the attitude, then progress here stops. It's been getting better because people keep pushing for it to get better, not because of some magical positive vibe in the air.
I know, but I would rather focus on the fact we ARE getting better than compare us to Iran.
I'm funny like that.
I know, but I would rather focus on the fact we ARE getting better than compare us to Iran. I'm funny like that.
We can look at both, I'd think -- they're not mutually contradictory. I agree that a sense of proportion is needed -- indeed, is improved, by looking at both together.
|
|
I know, but I would rather focus on the fact we ARE getting better than compare us to Iran. I'm funny like that.We can look at both, I'd think -- they're not mutually contradictory. I agree that a sense of proportion is needed -- indeed, is improved, by looking at both together.
Yeah, we take two steps forward, one step back. True. And we need to keep working. True.
But we aren't stuck on stupid.
Let me put it this way, we are barely passing our Fort save to get better from the illness we suffered from for years.
The Middle East pulled a Cadogan from last night.
Gotta love moral relativism.
"So, Iran stones women to death and mass murders homosexuals in soccer stadiums. That is exactly as bad as banning gay marriage."
Are you having a bad couple of days, HD? I did not take what Samnell said that way at all. Yes, there are greater and lesser evils and you can still rail against a lesser evil. Just look at the Lebron James fiasco…or hell…any nerdrage topic.
|
|
Are you having a bad couple of days, HD? I did not take what Samnell said that way at all. Yes, there are greater and lesser evils and you can still rail against a lesser evil. Just look at the Lebron James fiasco…or hell…any nerdrage topic.Gotta love moral relativism.
"So, Iran stones women to death and mass murders homosexuals in soccer stadiums. That is exactly as bad as banning gay marriage."
After Samnell called me and a few million of my brothers serial killers, I assume everything he types is in the same vein.