Honor killing and the difference in cultures.

Not wanting to hijack the recent thread on the beheading in Buffalo,NY I am posting another thread on the question of "honor killing" The beheading thread brought to mind this report I heard on NPR back in 2005 concerning "honor killing" in Iraq .

It is eight minutes long and you can listen to it here . When I heard the murderer of poor Fatima say that the family couldn't have held their head up unless he had done what he did I knew that our cultures were so far apart that it is unlikely we would ever find a peaceful co-existence.

For my culture and I hope yours killing Fatima would have been the dishonorable action. How do we "win" and bring democracy to people who have a mindset such as this ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

How do we "win" and bring democracy to people who have a mindset such as this ?

---

We kill them all. Sometimes peaceful coexistance is not an option. When my very existence offends their imaginary pal up in the sky, there's not going to be any rational dialogue.

Unreasonable people can't be reasoned with.

OK Jimmy; NPR is like that expired bran cereal that nobody wants! LOL!

I've got to agree with Jockeys on this one! They will never rest until we "the world" are either all converted or killed. The only way to break this ideology is to eradicate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

For my culture and I hope yours killing Fatima would have been the dishonorable action. How do we "win" and bring democracy to people who have a mindset such as this ?

---

I will be called names for this. Let me ask another question that is related to yours: how do we retain our democracies despite the influx of people who have a mindset such as this? (both North America and Europe)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparq

I will be called names for this. Let me ask another question that is related to yours: how do we retain our democracies despite the influx of people who have a mindset such as this? (both North America and Europe)

---

That is a conundrum that I don't know the answer to. People have been asking that question in relation to immigration for a long time. In 1908 when my grandfather came to the USA from Russia there was a lot of discrimination against eastern Europeans, Italians, Irish ........ "foreigners" in general who were not WASPs. Cultural assimilation was encouraged, even demanded and it gradually occurred. We all became "Americans"in our perception of ourselves and our cultural beliefs. The radical Islamic fundamentalists that we are concerned with appear to be a minority within Islam as a whole. At least I hope so. There are already a fair amount of muslims from around the world in the USA and in Europe and most of them seem to be good hard working people who only want to live and let live. That is my perception anyhow. Whether they will assimilate as previous immigrants have remains to be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmueller8

OK Jimmy; NPR is like that expired bran cereal that nobody wants! LOL!

I've got to agree with Jockeys on this one! They will never rest until we "the world" are either all converted or killed. The only way to break this ideology is to eradicate it.

---

I hear you. The same could have been said for "winning" in Viet Nam. We didn't "kill them all" then and we won't do it now. After 58,000 + American dead and many more wounded we now can buy cargo shorts and what have you made in Vietnam in our local Target store.

The "war on terror" would have been better pursued if we would have done as the British did with the IRA. Treat the terrorists as the criminals that they are and pursue them as individuals instead of invading these countries and setting off a guerrilla war within them. Sad to say when we finally pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan in however many years it will be much the same waste as our previous fiasco in the Nam.

I don't even want to comment on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparq

I will be called names for this. Let me ask another question that is related to yours: how do we retain our democracies despite the influx of people who have a mindset such as this? (both North America and Europe)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

That is a conundrum that I don't know the answer to. People have been asking that question in relation to immigration for a long time. In 1908 when my grandfather came to the USA from Russia there was a lot of discrimination against eastern Europeans, Italians, Irish ........ "foreigners" in general who were not WASPs. Cultural assimilation was encouraged, even demanded and it gradually occurred. We all became "Americans"in our perception of ourselves and our cultural beliefs. The radical Islamic fundamentalists that we are concerned with appear to be a minority within Islam as a whole. At least I hope so. There are already a fair amount of muslims from around the world in the USA and in Europe and most of them seem to be good hard working people who only want to live and let live. That is my perception anyhow. Whether they will assimilate as previous immigrants have remains to be seen.

---

This is the true heart of the problem, immigrants no longer wish nor need to become part of the country that they are immigrating into...

My mother though born in the US went back to Greece as a baby because her mother died here, so her father packed up his two daughters and returned to Greece to re-marry, they returned to the US 8 years later, when my mother was 10 years old, she had her early childhood in Greece....
Upon their arrival back in the US her father laid down the law... They were raised "American" speaking and acting Greek was not to be tolerated, nor encourgaed... His statement to them was simple "We live here now, you will learn the language, and you will study the history and culture" This is what has changed.....

The attitude now has become so warped that the new waves of immigrants actually believe that their new country somehow needs to adapt to suit them instead of the other way around....
We actually see this with the huge influx of people moving to Nth Idaho from the coast, both California and Washington transplants have the same attitude when they move up here with their continual statements of "We used to do it like this where I am from"


The thing is if where you came from (insert place) is so much better than where you moved to (insert place) that you want to change it, why did you move in the first place????

Steps down off the soap box:w

I agree with what has been said, although I don't think the Viet Nam comparison is entirely useful. Different motivations, different circumstances, religion, Israel, cold war, oil, etc.

To add to what has been said about immigration and blending in - not only does their not "melting" into the pot fracture our society, it keeps them from achieving the "American Dream". That dream involves adopting certain attitudes and values. If you don't live by those values, you're not gonna make it here. Then they act surprised and blame everyone else when they don't succeed.

EDIT: This doesn't mean they have to give up their heritage or deny their culture, but they do have to embrace basic American values. Not just live according to the letter of the law.

Jordan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnich67

This doesn't mean they have to give up their heritage or deny their culture, but they do have to embrace basic American values. Not just live according to the letter of the law.

---

Actually the only enforceable thing is the letter of the law, the rest basically is an individual choice. As Glen noted - his grandfather set the rules for his children, it's not the society that did it.
It's a free country and as long as it remains so people can make their free choices and live with the consequences. The smart ones would make smart choices, the dumb ones will make dumb choices. I don't see any problem with this, and I don't see how the problems that have been noted can be solved in a way that preserves the same values that the solution is supposed to preserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

This is the true heart of the problem, immigrants no longer wish nor need to become part of the country that they are immigrating into...

The attitude now has become so warped that the new waves of immigrants actually believe that their new country somehow needs to adapt to suit them instead of the other way around....
We actually see this with the huge influx of people moving to Nth Idaho from the coast, both California and Washington transplants have the same attitude when they move up here with their continual statements of "We used to do it like this where I am from"

Steps down off the soap box:w

---

Question - Was this not behavior for all immigrant communities in the past?
German communities in Milwaukee
Italian communities in New York
Irish communities in Boston
Japanese communities in San Fransisco and Seattle
Chinese communities on the west coast
Jewish communities in New York
Little Havana in Miami

The creation of these communities are good examples of immigrants in the past who wanted preserve some of the cultural identity and have a support system to help themselves in a new country. Is it not?

Frankly I believe it was.

And similar arguments were made then as they are now that the new wave of immigrants do not want to assimilate.

Fast forward to today and "generations" later these immigrants (you, I, many others have assimilated into American culture. These communities actually contributed to American Culture and are now proudly associated with American Culture. It was the fairness , equality and opportunity provided by American society that allowed this to happen.

I have full reason to believe that America will continue its great tradition of fairness, equality and opportunity and the same will happen with the newer immigrants..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Actually the only enforceable thing is the letter of the law, the rest basically is an individual choice. As Glen noted - his grandfather set the rules for his children, it's not the society that did it.
It's a free country and as long as it remains so people can make their free choices and live with the consequences. The smart ones would make smart choices, the dumb ones will make dumb choices. I don't see any problem with this, and I don't see how the problems that have been noted can be solved in a way that preserves the same values that the solution is supposed to preserve.

---

What you are saying is correct. But it seems, these days, that entire communities are not making the "smart" decision. Then, certain bleeding hearts blame society as a whole for their failures instead of the individual. I don't know the solution either, except that we have to tell the truth about it. Even if that hurts some people's feelings.

Jordan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amyn

Question - Was this not behavior for all immigrant communities in the past?
German communities in Milwaukee
Italian communities in New York
Irish communities in Boston
Japanese communities in San Fransisco and Seattle
Chinese communities on the west coast
Jewish communities in New York
Little Havana in Miami

The creation of these communities are good examples of immigrants in the past who wanted preserve some of the cultural identity and have a support system to help themselves in a new country. Is it not?

Frankly I believe it was.

And similar arguments were made then as they are now that the new wave of immigrants do not want to assimilate.

Fast forward to today and "generations" later these immigrants (you, I, many others have assimilated into American culture. These communities actually contributed to American Culture and are now proudly associated with American Culture. It was the fairness , equality and opportunity provided by American society that allowed this to happen.

I have full reason to believe that America will continue its great tradition of fairness, equality and opportunity and the same will happen with the newer immigrants..

---

But the difference today seems to be that some here want to "enable" immigrants and allow them to stay separate - teaching school in languages other than English, for example. I don't think they did that at the turn of the last century.

The groups of the past also embraced the values I mentioned earlier. They didn't dance in the streets when their new country was attacked. They were proud to be American, not an XXXXXX just living in the US.

Jordan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amyn

Question - Was this not behavior for all immigrant communities in the past?
German communities in Milwaukee
Italian communities in New York
Irish communities in Boston
Japanese communities in San Fransisco and Seattle
Chinese communities on the west coast
Jewish communities in New York
Little Havana in Miami

The creation of these communities are good examples of immigrants in the past who wanted preserve some of the cultural identity and have a support system to help themselves in a new country. Is it not?

Frankly I believe it was.

And similar arguments were made then as they are now that the new wave of immigrants do not want to assimilate.

Fast forward to today and "generations" later these immigrants (you, I, many others have assimilated into American culture. These communities actually contributed to American Culture and are now proudly associated with American Culture. It was the fairness , equality and opportunity provided by American society that allowed this to happen.

I have full reason to believe that America will continue its great tradition of fairness, equality and opportunity and the same will happen with the newer immigrants..

---

Keep in mind that I am not in anyway saying this is an American problem only, this is happening everywhere, and it is not the holding on to ones culture, that is a problem , never has been....
It is the new expectation, that the new country, should change to suit the incoming immigrant, that the new country somehow should be beholding to the new immigrant, that has become the problem, read the link that Rajagra posted, and see that in England they have set up a separate legal system ... This is the problem.....

Here in the US just look at the language issues, I personally do not believe that I should have to pay taxes, to print DL manuals in multiple languages, or school books, or hire multi-lingual teachers, cops, government workers, or any other worker for that matter at a higher pay rate, just to be able to communicate with a new influx of immigrants, who are not willing to learn the language of the country they have "CHOSEN" to move to....

This I DO have a problem with here in the US, I am sure other countries are having the same problems that we are having too....

Now that you want to celebrate the Chinese New Year, Ramadan, Cinco d Mayo or any other thing to preserve your culture, and to make the host counrty a little more worldly???? I DO NOT have a problem with... at your cost!!!!!!

Stupid soapbox !!! :D

Glen, you just wrote what I was thinking, but couldn't express as clearly. Thanks.

Jordan

Trust me Jordan it took some editing, to make me think, I had it sorta clear hehehe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnich67

But the difference today seems to be that some here want to "enable" immigrants and allow them to stay separate - teaching school in languages other than English, for example. I don't think they did that at the turn of the last century.

The groups of the past also embraced the values I mentioned earlier. They didn't dance in the streets when their new country was attacked. They were proud to be American, not an XXXXXX just living in the US.

Jordan

---

There were German groups in the United States that were loyal to Hitler during WWII. This is very well documented.

As for the language question which is really complicated and is a whole different thread. Immigrants from the past had the same struggles.

"Enablers" = "Disablers" across time. There are just an many enablers today as there are disablers.

I believe that anyone who wants to move forward in "world society" not just "american society" must learn English. English is the language of business and science. Although I honestly I think it is a great asset to be bilingual. Most of the world other countries are a bilingual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Stupid soapbox !!! :D

---

You did well, Glen. There are a lot of nice ideals flying around this thread but I suggest everyone to read Ray's article again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I don't even want to comment on this.

---

Ok I'll comment then.
It seems to me fair as long as you allow this group of people to set disputes among themselves, to also allow that other group of people. I think most here believe in personal freedom and responsibility, so if two parties agree among themselves on some matter, I see no reason for the society to step in and change that.

I don't know why would such agreements have to be enforced by the 'official' system though. In my thinking the 'official' system should only enforce the official judgements.

The fact that the jewish arbitrage courts or whatever they are would rule closer to what the legal system would, and the sharia ones wouldn't doesn't make the first more credible than the second. If you want to outsource justice you either have to keep up with the exact same standard, or it is a completely different kind of justice.

And as long as their decisions do not have to be enforced by the state if somebody is not happy with these unofficial courts they can turn to the official system of justice which is enforceable. Of course this would just make these communal courts completely irrelevant, but in my opinion they should really be. Justice has to be enforceable, otherwise it's pointless.

At least that's how I think I'd like it to be set up. And I don't have any legal training, so it's just my 'common sense'.

I love the spirited discussions here....

(jumps on the soapbox)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Keep in mind that I am not in anyway saying this is an American problem only, this is happening everywhere, and it is not the holding on to ones culture, that is a problem , never has been....
It is the new expectation, that the new country, should change to suit the incoming immigrant, that the new country somehow should be beholding to the new immigrant, that has become the problem,

---

I disagree that immigrants have the expectation of the new country to change. Majority of the immigrants who move to a new country have a singular goal and that is to survive in their new environment, to find work to feed themselves and their family. It would be quite silly of them to think they can come into a new society and completely change it. The can and do create small safe havens /communities to preserve some of their culture and to provide a support system as I mentioned earlier.

Say you moved from Alabama to New York, you sure as heck would not expect every New Yorker to start talking with a southern twang, and start drinking ice-tea, eating fried chicken and biscuits, and follow college football like a religion. It ain't happening!!! :gl: if you want to try.
No disrespect to anyone from New York or Alabama.

Yes you may find a bar where Alabama fans gather to watch games, suck on some suds and smoke a few stogies...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

read the link that Rajagra posted, and see that in England they have set up a separate legal system ... This is the problem.....

---

Very interesting that you mention England. The manner in which England has dealt with its immigrants and the way the United States has dealt with its immigrants the differences are night and day. Here in the US if you worked hard and you had the opportunities to move up in society and make a good life for yourself regardless of your background. Immigrants have done so and succeeded and assimilated. Once again goes back to my point about the equality, fairness and opportunity presented by American society.

Great Britain on the other has still has rampant problems with discrimination and classism , and the problems they are having today is a direct result of these issues. Immigrant communities were isolated and radicalized because of their inability to economically prosper because of discrimination and classism.

Is it not surprising that GB and USA have very large Muslim populations yet radicalization has been a problem for GB and not the USA...

As a student and ardent believer in Rawlsian ideology let me say this about that.

According to Rawls society exists to make laws that balance the needs of the majority with that of the minority.

Rawls' idea, thought experiment, is this simplified.

Take 1 person from every race, creed, culture, and religion in the country that you live in. Sit them down at a table and "remove" all ignorances, preconceived notions, knowledge of station in life, etc.. Rawls called this the veil of ignorance.

They will then make the laws. Remove the veil. According to him then the laws will be balanced.

What we have in this country is an utter failure to recognize those laws that we have agreed to live by and order our lives by. Furthermore and Rawls makes allowances for this that individual societies, Little Havana for example, has "rules" that its people live by that seem to supersede the laws of the majority. This is wrong in all aspects. Rawls recognizes this and allows that certain "behaviors" are allowed but not a total usurpation of the laws of the majority.

Unless and until Little Havana wants to secede from the US they are bound by the laws that the majority decided would benefit and do the most good for the most people.

YMMV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Ok I'll comment then.
It seems to me fair as long as you allow this group of people to set disputes among themselves, to also allow that other group of people. I think most here believe in personal freedom and responsibility, so if two parties agree among themselves on some matter, I see no reason for the society to step in and change that..

---

I have a problem with it when, in the course of settling disputes, their internal rules automatically designate 50% of the citizenry as second-class, borderline-subhuman property. I prefer a justice system that recognizes the equality of everyone, regardless of gender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

I have a problem with it when, in the course of settling disputes, their internal rules automatically designate 50% of the citizenry as second-class, borderline-subhuman property. I prefer a justice system that recognizes the equality of everyone, regardless of gender.

---

As long as that 50% is happy with the arrangement I have no problem with that. If they are unhappy they can turn to the official legal system which is more fair. In the cases when the official system is unfair it's up to that community to change it, if they want to do so. For example even in US human rights have not always extend equally to all humans. But the US society as a whole has recognized the need to change this and currently things are pretty fair.

First of all, it is a HORRIBLE thing!

Secondly, we need to try to understand their side of the picture (yes, it is possible to understand at the same time as you totally disagree)
Here in the west we live in a sin based culture. Our standards is based on acts being right or wrong. We also live in an extremely individualistic society where your actions leads to you being punished or not by the society.

Many other cultures are shame/honor based. Their main norm is honor, some times honor is even more important to them than right and wrong. (just try to ask a person in India about directions, if he doesn't know he don't want to make you feel shameful about making him look stupid, so to save you both from shame he will give you bogus directions)
The same cultures are also often based on family rather than individuals.
The combination of the two can lead to horrible things like honor killing. But the same cultures have some amazing things because of the same reasons, like it being a given thing to let old parents move in to your home and look after them because it would be a shame for your family to put them in to a nursery home and pay others to look after them when you live hundreds of miles away.
There are a few seriously screwed up things that are typical in the cultures where honor-killing is happening:
If a man sleeps with (or even rapes) a girl, she is the one bringing shame on to the family.
They believe in restoring honor by killing.

Honor killing is disgusting and horrible, but I think it is important to keep things clear. Honor killings are performed by individuals or small groups of individuals. NEVER even think about "killing them all" like someone here mentioned. That is way more barbaric than even honor killing.

And by the way what makes a white man killing his wife "domestic violence" when an arab killing his wife is "honor killing"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

As long as that 50% is happy with the arrangement I have no problem with that. If they are unhappy they can turn to the official legal system which is more fair. In the cases when the official system is unfair it's up to that community to change it, if they want to do so. For example even in US human rights have not always extend equally to all humans. But the US society as a whole has recognized the need to change this and currently things are pretty fair.

---

and what if that 50% isn't happy with it, but is bullied, brainwashed and beaten until it gives up and submits?

I'm just not ok with treating women worse than I'd treat a dog. I'll never be cool with it. Any culture that says it's ok to make your wife obey you (which I also have a fundamental problem with) by enforcing your whims with your fists... is a culture of cowardice and dishonorable wimps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

and what if that 50% isn't happy with it, but is bullied, brainwashed and beaten until it gives up and submits?

I'm just not ok with treating women worse than I'd treat a dog. I'll never be cool with it. Any culture that says it's ok to make your wife obey you (which I also have a fundamental problem with) by enforcing your whims with your fists... is a culture of cowardice and dishonorable wimps.

---

Agreed. There comes a point where you need to stop trying to "understand" and say "that's just wrong". We do this with each other all the time. The KKK and other groups are pretty much universally condemned. We don't try to "understand" them. The views of fundamentalist Muslims are not much different than these hate groups. Change a few words here and there....

I promised myself I would butt-out of this discussion :rolleyes:..., but I'm in the process of procrastinating over some things I need to get done.:D

Jordan

Yes, we sometimes need to say that is just wrong. It is really needed when it comes to honor-killing and unfair treatment of women.
But it is parts of the culture that needs to be taken away, not the cultures. Every culture has got good and bad sides, imagine how awesome it would be if they got rid of the bad sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyboy

Yes, we sometimes need to say that is just wrong. It is really needed when it comes to honor-killing and unfair treatment of women.
But it is parts of the culture that needs to be taken away, not the cultures. Every culture has got good and bad sides, imagine how awesome it would be if they got rid of the bad sides.

---

perhaps, but many theistic cultures proscribe changes to the culture, strengthening their traditions while at the same time preventing adaptation. if the culture is homogenous enough, and has a strong enough resistance to change (whether by legislative fiat or by supernatural threat) then the only way to remove the unacceptable elements is to completely wipe it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

perhaps, but many theistic cultures proscribe changes to the culture, strengthening their traditions while at the same time preventing adaptation. if the culture is homogenous enough, and has a strong enough resistance to change (whether by legislative fiat or by supernatural threat) then the only way to remove the unacceptable elements is to completely wipe it out.

---

Explain what you mean by wipe it out? I hope you do not mean kill them all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

if the culture is homogenous enough, and has a strong enough resistance to change (whether by legislative fiat or by supernatural threat) then the only way to remove the unacceptable elements is to completely wipe it out.

---

I grew up in the segregated Southern USA in the 1950s and '60s. Who would have ever thought that this country and it's culture could have changed as much as it has ? For the better IMHO.

If you want to see an example of what the general perception of women and ethnic minorities was in say 1931 then get a copy of Cimarron. It was the first film to win an Oscar for best motion picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

We kill them all. Sometimes peaceful coexistance is not an option. When my very existence offends their imaginary pal up in the sky, there's not going to be any rational dialogue.

Unreasonable people can't be reasoned with.

---

Ah, there's your post. :)

That's sounds like a very bigoted outlook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amyn

Explain what you mean by wipe it out? I hope you do not mean kill them all?

---

that's exactly what I mean. it's foolish to assume that you can reason with unreasonable people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

Ah, there's your post. :)

That's sounds like a very bigoted outlook.

---

it's a very ugly truth. but no less true for being ugly. most people think that you can solve conflicts like this with talk and reasoning. I just really don't see that ever working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

Ah, there's your post. :)

That's sounds like a very bigoted outlook.

---

Whoa Nelly!!!! their outlook says the exact same thing !!!
Covert, submit, or die.... period end of story that's is their dogma...

So now who is Bigoted????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Whoa Nelly!!!! their outlook says the exact same thing !!!
Covert, submit, or die.... period end of story that's is their dogma...

So now who is Bigoted????

---

It's all part of the double standard - some here don't expect muslim fundamentalists to be able to be tolerant and hold them to a lower standard. It's ok for them to be bigots because, well darn it, they have a different culture that we need to accept and understand. We are held to a higher standard, because we should know better.

In a way, it's more bigoted to expect less from someone than to tell them the truth. I haven't read the whole speech, but I suspect that some of this is what Holder was pointing to today.

Jordan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

We kill them all. Sometimes peaceful coexistance is not an option. When my very existence offends their imaginary pal up in the sky, there's not going to be any rational dialogue.

Unreasonable people can't be reasoned with.

---

"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."

I see the event in Buffalo as an example of culture clash. Most will be at least somewhat reasonable and should not be condemned for the actions of a few. By banning slavery and presenting an alternative to segregation the USA has made great strides. There are still racists, but overall the world view has progressed.

We must stay the course. By offering reason, it can and will be adopted even if only gradually.

X

Why should we lower ourselves down to their level?
If we killed them all, they would have succeeded in destroying our culture.
Isn't our culture built around acting decent? We are showing the supremacy of our culture by not destroying them even if they would have in our place.

I just looked up the term bigoted: "Utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Sounds about right.

I wasn't saying one side was more stubborn than the other; but being from the west myself, I do expect more of a diplomatic stance from other westerners on the issue. These aren't the days of Genghis Khan, where everyone taller than a wagon wheel's axle was decapitated. If you've closed your mind to anything and everything except, "you kill them all," that's really a shame. Many people have died in war because racism and bigotry keeps their eyes shut in the middle of a storm, and prevents them from even looking for a port.

And, as ugly as this truth may be, those words stink of racism. Similarly minded people saw no possibility of whites and blacks living together equally. Ever. And they fought to keep them in chains. So that's what I think of... someone that would say that today probably would have fought for a similarly bigoted cause in the 1860's. As ugly as that may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

that's exactly what I mean. it's foolish to assume that you can reason with unreasonable people.

it's a very ugly truth. but no less true for being ugly. most people think that you can solve conflicts like this with talk and reasoning. I just really don't see that ever working.

---

So in your opinion it seems it is "reasonable" to kill an entire group of people because their culture poses a threat to yours... well if you find that reasonable then :gl:

There are no double standards in my mind I reject all fundamentalist views from any side.
Unfortunately no one from the "other side" happen to shave :rofl2: or for that matter use a str8 so it is highly unlikely that they would become a member of this forum any time soon.

In case they do and happen to post their views then you will see a similar response to them.

Again with the double standards, though a people's entire ideology exists and is centered on submission/destruction of all peoples other than ones that meet their idiology,... we as "civilized people" should be more tolerant?????

I really, really, don't understand that way of thinking, I just don't...
They want to kill you, but hey that's OK??? reason with your enemy!!!! show him compassion???? turn the other cheek???? BE tolerant???

Hmmmm :hmmm: No thank you sir, you go right ahead, be tolerant...:gl:


Me ??? I would rather be vigilant....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

and what if that 50% isn't happy with it, but is bullied, brainwashed and beaten until it gives up and submits?

I'm just not ok with treating women worse than I'd treat a dog. I'll never be cool with it. Any culture that says it's ok to make your wife obey you (which I also have a fundamental problem with) by enforcing your whims with your fists... is a culture of cowardice and dishonorable wimps.

---

Well, I don't approve it but that really isn't my own business.
As it was pointed out many times the 'western culture' used to incorporate all these bad attitudes and practices, some of them not so long ago. Apparently it was able to evolve to what it is now and in anoher 20 years will be even more different.
I don't see why would anybody deny the right of any group of people to live the way they want to.
If somebody happened to be born say in USA they have a lot of freedoms that are protected by laws. If they happened to be born in Saudi Arabia they wouldn't have all these freedoms, but I do not see how that is my problem. Yes, if they are unhappy with their culture I would be supportive to their efforts to change it or move to another one which they like better, but the responsibility for this is theirs, not mine.

It is not my responsibility to proscribe how other people should live their lives, I am only responsible for mine. Killing off those who don't live the same way as me, apart from being against my moral norms, has never worked very well. I believe tolerance is the better way and I expect others to be tolerant of my choices the same way as I am tolerant of theirs. Of course I cannot force this on anybody, I can only choose to be tolerant myself.
The only thing I find justified is to defend my rights when somebody tries to infringe upon them.

Let me tell you a story. The first muslim women who I talked about their culture with were two ladies from Algeria and Morocco. They were very well educated, better than most people in the west, and were in a Western country on a career-related business. They were in their early/mid 20s and not married yet. I asked them how they feel about their male-domiated culture for example that a man can have multiple wifes. They told me they have absolutely no problem with that and it is better for a man to take more than one wife and take care of all of them, than divorce the ones he doesn't fancy anymore.
In a way it makes sense in such culture, where a single woman, or even worse divorced one is basically a complete outcast. One way would be to proclaim that culture completely inferior and go wipe it out from the face of the earth, but then our current culture was at the same stage only few hundred years ago. These things change on a generational timescale.