Iran: Women to be stoned to death

[Hell Awaits Us All]

Respecting human life is not a Western European value or any other region of the world. It is a human value & the Middle East with their stoning to death is not valuing human life. I can see if it was just rapists, murderers and/or child molestors but to stone someone to death for adultery or having a child out of wedlock is nothing more then their society needing to control women and doing it by fear and consequences.

fucking exactly

it's not just control women, it's with the intent to dehumanize women

for fuck's sake, we are talking about culture where women are often blamed for being raped, where female sex slaves (that were sold by their parents) who return from another country are blamed and then punished/imprisoned for "immoral behavior"

fuck man, if you think christian fundamentalism is bad. It is fucking sunshine and unicorns compared to islamic fundamentalism.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

How can they blame the women for the man not being able to control his cock?


Thats fucking outrageous.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

thanx.. only thing i want to add that it is a cultural thing and not a religious thing since Palenstinian Christians do such things as well... Iran will someday have another revolution someday and those "hardliners" will get a taste of their own medicine hopefully... btw i love that pic of Satch but he don't look right without hair...

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

So the 'modern age' means that everyone should have to conform to Western European models of political/social organization and moral values, eh? Oh what a good little neo-imperialist you are! Uncle Dick would be proud!

Oh, Jesus Christ. Just shut the fuck up. I wish I could reach through the internet and deck you.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Oh, Jesus Christ. Just shut the fuck up. I wish I could reach through the internet and deck you.

I was thinking that exact saame thing a couple of hours ago.

 

[Mort Divine]

While I understand what SoG is saying, the inhumane treatment of women in all Muslim countries is wrong - perhaps not under their moral code, but frankly I care not for theirs and more for the "Individual lives matter, regardless of sex" view.

 

[skeptik]

Ease up on the flaming.

Scourge Of God has made several valid points whether you agree with his stance or not. Judging other cultures on the same basis of your own is foolhardy at best. That said, there is a line that is breached after which I feel that intervention is justifiable, and the biggest one is unnecessary execution. Despite the rich history of honor killings in arab culture, I would still like to see it done away with and allow them to move on to a more humane means of rebuke.

 

[Scourge of God]

Ease up on the flaming.

Scourge Of God has made several valid points whether you agree with his stance or not. Judging other cultures on the same basis of your own is foolhardy at best. That said, there is a line that is breached after which I feel that intervention is justifiable, and the biggest one is unnecessary execution. Despite the rich history of honor killings in arab culture, I would still like to see it done away with and allow them to move on to a more humane means of rebuke.

Western intervention is pretty much precisely calibrated to ensure that Arab and Muslim societies CAN'T move toward more 'humane means of rebuke.' American attempts to sow civil unrest in Iran, in particular, have the effect of making life much harder for Iranian women.

 

[skeptik]

I wasn't talking about any specific scenario, so why you bring up "Western intervention" and "American attempts to sow civil unrest" in the context of my post is beyond me.

 

[AchrisK]

I think if punishments fit the crimes better and were carried out faster that it would be much more of a deterrant that what we currently have in the USA.

 

[Scourge of God]

I wasn't talking about any specific scenario, so why you bring up "Western intervention" and "American attempts to sow civil unrest" in the context of my post is beyond me.

1. Surprisingly, everything is not always about you. While the response was to your post, it took place in the context of a discussion in which several other posters have implied that Muslim countries shouldn't be allowed to maintain their own cultural values when those values conflict with Western notions of what is morally acceptable.

2. Let's go to the tape, shall we?

That said, there is a line that is breached after which I feel that intervention is justifiable

No more mendacity, mmmkay?

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Your parents should have beat you more.

You deserve it.

 

[skeptik]

1. Surprisingly, everything is not always about you. While the response was to your post, it took place in the context of a discussion in which several other posters have implied that Muslim countries shouldn't be allowed to maintain their own cultural values when those values conflict with Western notions of what is morally acceptable.

2. Let's go to the tape, shall we?



No more mendacity, mmmkay?

To accuse me of egocentrism due to the fact that I took your post as a response to my post is to assume that I have a full understanding of the workings of your brain, which I don't. The addressee of your response was vague at best and could have easily been seen as a response to the post that you quoted.

And there was no mendacity in my post. What I meant by specific scenario was not the scenario in response to which intervention is required, but rather the scenario that IS the intervention. Yes, I do believe that stoning and honour killing should be stopped. This is a specific scenario of the former case, but not what I was talking about. I never proposed a suggestion of who or how or when as far as intervening is concerned. If I was to have made a mendacious statement, I would have said that the US or Canada or some specific body should intervene. I suppose we both fell victim to being overly vague in our responses, then.

 

[Scourge of God]

Stop spinning, you faggot. You explicitly brought up 'intervention' in a discussion of the stoning of adulterous women in Iran. For you then to suggest that the question of Western intervention generally - and US attempts to undermine the stability of Iranian society specifically - is somehow unrelated to your post in favor of intervention is fucking absurd. Only the Western democracies (read: the United States and Britain) have the power projection potential to intervene in the first place, and only the Western democracies (read: the United States and Britain) have any interest in doing so. That being the case, the only possible reasons you would deny the obvious connection here are:

1. You're an idiot (which I know not to be the case).

or

2. You're more interested in protecting your moralizing stance than in admitting the truth.

 

[skeptik]

I was speaking in hypotheticals, you assuming cunt. You've implied far more to my argument than I have even said. I never said that it was feasible or worthwhile or an improvement to intervene in the context of the modern world, because more likely than not it isn't. But that doesn't mean that I can't think that something should be done, regardless of whether or not anything can realistically be done. If I was speaking practically though, of course, you would be right. I have no problem admitting this truth, you just assumed that that was what I was arguing.

This really is a worthless fucking argument. You seem more interested in riling others up than seriously entertaining debate, which is why I normally try to steer clear of entering arguments with you.

 

[The Heartbreak Kid]

Neccy, you have got to stop becoming involved in everyones arguements.

 

[skeptik]

I wasn't trying to get involved this time. I didn't anticipate this, but I'm done anyway.

 

[Scourge of God]

I was speaking in hypotheticals, you assuming cunt.

And the only hypothetical intervention that would take place is WESTERN intervention. Why even argue for intervention, if, as you say, it isn't a viable option? If there is no feasible means of intervening, why bring it up at all?

This really is a worthless fucking argument. You seem more interested in riling others up than seriously entertaining debate, which is why I normally try to steer clear of entering arguments with you.

You steer clear of arguments with me because you always lose. At this point, we've demonstrated pretty conclusively that I know more than you about pretty much every conceivable subject.

 

[skeptik]

Get out of your own ass. I haven't even directly addressed you in probably about 2 years from what I can remember.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

You steer clear of arguments with me because you always lose. At this point, we've demonstrated pretty conclusively that I know more than you about pretty much every conceivable subject.

I think it has more to do with you being an angry little prick who gets off on acting superior to others on the internet (I should know, because we can smell our own). Never before have I been so positive beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone online was, in real life, a lonely and pathetic little nerd typing away in his basement and giggling to himself as he constructs weak flames disguised as arguments.