75 yr old woman sentenced to 40 lashes for mingling.
- Thread starter wsionynw
- Start date
- Status
Then just apply that logic to the Saudi legal system.
I'll quit killing women in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Gaza right after you quit killing baby girls and toddlers in India.
lord love a duck
yep, that was all it took for me to give up my murdering ways.
What armed soldier? You know who that dead guy is? He was armed as he was beaten to death by US troops?
Consistency? (And notes on a question more valid.)
And as long as there have been old women in humanity, there has been injustice against them.
Reality doesn't necessarily justify itself morally, does it, Orleander?
And the Saud is the victor within its territory, and that would mean that old women get whipped.
When did Caterpillar start outfitting the Iraqi army? I mean, we know they're happy to equip tyrants and abet crimes against humanity, but dead brown skin ≠ armed soldier.
Seriously, what army or faction wears Cat jackets?
To the other, though, presuming that your patriotic assumption is correct, and the dead man on the table is an evil terrorist, we still must consider the basis of assessment.
An old woman? International outrage over whipping the hell out of an old woman should be directed at the fact of the whipping. Or maybe people just like the idea when it's not the Saud, so they want us to focus on the emotional appeal: She's old!
An armed soldier or terrorist? In the middle of a goddamn war? Guess what, Orleander? As long as there have been wars, armed soldiers have been worth more than old women.
Please realize, Orleaner, there are certain folks around here who have long opposed certain ideas like coddling tyrants. We were shouted down in the 1980s when the U.S. aided and abetted the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. We protested the propping of a thug dictator in Liberia. We were told it wasn't respectful or proper to criticize the Saud—you know, demeaning their culture by suggesting covering their women or whipping and beheading their citizens was somehow disrespectful.
And for those folks, the outrage they've been supposed to experience for the last seven and a half or so years rings almost entirely false. The Saud has been unjust for years. Iraq was a mess for years. The Taliban were never "good guys" in any war. Hell, I'll reach back to the Shah, as well. And we were supposed to like Reza Pahlavi.
So where are our geopolitical problems these days? Iraq? Afghanistan? Iran? What, is anyone surprised?
Not really, but now that it's finally convenient to complain about what's going on in the Islamic world, we're all supposed to feel outraged?
Nope. Not buying. Just because our central cultural establishments have decided to exploit the legitimate calls for justice as a rally cry for the latest crusade against Muslims doesn't mean the formerly marginalized political voices in American and Western society are just going to hop on the blind hate bandwagon.
Yeah. What's happening in the Saud is repugnant. But it's been going on for a while, and plenty of old women have gone before this one, and plenty of innocent have been jailed, tortured, and beheaded. But now that we're five years into a completely botched war endeavor, all of a sudden the warmongers and financiers actually, genuinely care about old women in the Saud, homosexuals in Iran, children in Afghanistan or Pakistan?
No. We'll continue giving a damn in our own way and not give over to the grotesquely hypocritical shift to suddenly hold justice as a rally flag for even more injustice.
So let's think about this: The Saudi regime behaves in a way its international neighbors have long condoned, yet only now are we supposed (allowed) to be outraged?
But that appeal to emotion is entirely exclusive. The old woman is worth more than a dead "armed soldier" wearing a Caterpillar jacket. It's wrong to beat the hell out of her, but okay to kill the hell out of other people? Why? Is it because she's a woman? Because she's old? Because the charge is bogus? No. Personally, I think the reason is because it is convenient for a bunch of war-lusting profiteers if you do.
Another "armed soldier"? Whipping old women is wrong, but doing this to
children is entertainment. Why else do we cheer and keep paying for more?
(Photo by Abid Kateb for Getty.)
I'll tell you what's outrageous: So many of my American neighbors finally finding a palate for human rights and basic dignity, but only so we can go and blow those things all to hell for a bunch of dark-skinned people who never followed the right fucking religion. Oh, and who are between us and our goddamn oil.
Yes, the Saud is crazy. It's dangerous. It's a scourge upon the Earth. But any American who is compelled to object to the actions of a regime the United States has done so much to support should also consider the effects of our own imperial need. Of course, there's nothing like hiding murder and robbery by pointing out other people's wrongs.
In the grand scheme of things, think of it like Hell, with bodies and misery piled all over, blood running dirty through the gutters. We need to clean this place up. What are our priorities?
As much as I hate to admit it, the Saud is down the list a few slots. And among their priorities, ludicrous criminal punishment schemes might stand at number three or four.
So yes, whipping old women is wrong.
But the alternative shouldn't be hideous, bloodthirsty lunacy.
It's worth pointing out that the political overtones of this discussion have buried a question both compelling and legitimate:
It is insufficient to simply say that women are allowed to exist, but if you smoke enough pot, read some Byron, and stare at, say, Picasso's Guernica, long enough, the colloquial context can push through. There's a rock and roll band only releasing over the internet at present (The AccoLade). And there is a push to staff lingerie stores with women. They're small indications, indeed, but also suggestive that women in Saudi Arabia will not simply lie back and take it.
As to the broader picture, I can't tell you exactly. But Kai Ryssdal made a point, when the radio show Marketplace went to Saudi Arabia, by recounting a brief encounter for the prologue to a discussion of modernity and Islam:
In the long run, we might want to work on assembling a dossier of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Pitching our outrage, as some people have, after random news stories doesn't actually help us understand the situation or its solutions.
Regarding the effects of Saudi laws, it can probably be safely said that they reduce the number of crimes, but not necessarily the severity. Additionally, perhaps as part of some future study, we might also figure out what kind and how many crimes such laws contribute to.
_____________________
Notes:
Sullivan, Andrew. "Gaza". The Daily Dish. March 9, 2009. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/gaza.html
McEvers, Kelly. "The AccoLade: Saudi Women Rock Out". All Things Considered. December 16, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98138992
Hancock, Stephanie. "Saudi lingerie trade in a twist". BBC News. February 25, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7908866.stm
Ryssdal, Kai and Samer Shehata. "Modernity and Islam go together". Marketplace. March 13, 2008. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/13/meaw_pm4_shehata_commentary/
Orleander said:
And as long as there have been old women in humanity, there has been injustice against them.
Reality doesn't necessarily justify itself morally, does it, Orleander?
And the Saud is the victor within its territory, and that would mean that old women get whipped.
When did Caterpillar start outfitting the Iraqi army? I mean, we know they're happy to equip tyrants and abet crimes against humanity, but dead brown skin ≠ armed soldier.
Seriously, what army or faction wears Cat jackets?
To the other, though, presuming that your patriotic assumption is correct, and the dead man on the table is an evil terrorist, we still must consider the basis of assessment.
An old woman? International outrage over whipping the hell out of an old woman should be directed at the fact of the whipping. Or maybe people just like the idea when it's not the Saud, so they want us to focus on the emotional appeal: She's old!
An armed soldier or terrorist? In the middle of a goddamn war? Guess what, Orleander? As long as there have been wars, armed soldiers have been worth more than old women.
Please realize, Orleaner, there are certain folks around here who have long opposed certain ideas like coddling tyrants. We were shouted down in the 1980s when the U.S. aided and abetted the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. We protested the propping of a thug dictator in Liberia. We were told it wasn't respectful or proper to criticize the Saud—you know, demeaning their culture by suggesting covering their women or whipping and beheading their citizens was somehow disrespectful.
And for those folks, the outrage they've been supposed to experience for the last seven and a half or so years rings almost entirely false. The Saud has been unjust for years. Iraq was a mess for years. The Taliban were never "good guys" in any war. Hell, I'll reach back to the Shah, as well. And we were supposed to like Reza Pahlavi.
So where are our geopolitical problems these days? Iraq? Afghanistan? Iran? What, is anyone surprised?
Not really, but now that it's finally convenient to complain about what's going on in the Islamic world, we're all supposed to feel outraged?
Nope. Not buying. Just because our central cultural establishments have decided to exploit the legitimate calls for justice as a rally cry for the latest crusade against Muslims doesn't mean the formerly marginalized political voices in American and Western society are just going to hop on the blind hate bandwagon.
Yeah. What's happening in the Saud is repugnant. But it's been going on for a while, and plenty of old women have gone before this one, and plenty of innocent have been jailed, tortured, and beheaded. But now that we're five years into a completely botched war endeavor, all of a sudden the warmongers and financiers actually, genuinely care about old women in the Saud, homosexuals in Iran, children in Afghanistan or Pakistan?
No. We'll continue giving a damn in our own way and not give over to the grotesquely hypocritical shift to suddenly hold justice as a rally flag for even more injustice.
So let's think about this: The Saudi regime behaves in a way its international neighbors have long condoned, yet only now are we supposed (allowed) to be outraged?
But that appeal to emotion is entirely exclusive. The old woman is worth more than a dead "armed soldier" wearing a Caterpillar jacket. It's wrong to beat the hell out of her, but okay to kill the hell out of other people? Why? Is it because she's a woman? Because she's old? Because the charge is bogus? No. Personally, I think the reason is because it is convenient for a bunch of war-lusting profiteers if you do.
Another "armed soldier"? Whipping old women is wrong, but doing this to
children is entertainment. Why else do we cheer and keep paying for more?
(Photo by Abid Kateb for Getty.)
I'll tell you what's outrageous: So many of my American neighbors finally finding a palate for human rights and basic dignity, but only so we can go and blow those things all to hell for a bunch of dark-skinned people who never followed the right fucking religion. Oh, and who are between us and our goddamn oil.
Yes, the Saud is crazy. It's dangerous. It's a scourge upon the Earth. But any American who is compelled to object to the actions of a regime the United States has done so much to support should also consider the effects of our own imperial need. Of course, there's nothing like hiding murder and robbery by pointing out other people's wrongs.
In the grand scheme of things, think of it like Hell, with bodies and misery piled all over, blood running dirty through the gutters. We need to clean this place up. What are our priorities?
As much as I hate to admit it, the Saud is down the list a few slots. And among their priorities, ludicrous criminal punishment schemes might stand at number three or four.
So yes, whipping old women is wrong.
But the alternative shouldn't be hideous, bloodthirsty lunacy.
• • •
It's worth pointing out that the political overtones of this discussion have buried a question both compelling and legitimate:
Wsionynw said:
It is insufficient to simply say that women are allowed to exist, but if you smoke enough pot, read some Byron, and stare at, say, Picasso's Guernica, long enough, the colloquial context can push through. There's a rock and roll band only releasing over the internet at present (The AccoLade). And there is a push to staff lingerie stores with women. They're small indications, indeed, but also suggestive that women in Saudi Arabia will not simply lie back and take it.
As to the broader picture, I can't tell you exactly. But Kai Ryssdal made a point, when the radio show Marketplace went to Saudi Arabia, by recounting a brief encounter for the prologue to a discussion of modernity and Islam:
I was sitting outside eating dinner tonight when this woman walked by wearing a full hijab. Covered in black from top to bottom, including her face. With hot pink Stilettos heels on her feet. It's tempting, when things like that happen, to assume some kind of disconnect between Islam and the present day.
In the long run, we might want to work on assembling a dossier of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Pitching our outrage, as some people have, after random news stories doesn't actually help us understand the situation or its solutions.
Regarding the effects of Saudi laws, it can probably be safely said that they reduce the number of crimes, but not necessarily the severity. Additionally, perhaps as part of some future study, we might also figure out what kind and how many crimes such laws contribute to.
_____________________
Notes:
Sullivan, Andrew. "Gaza". The Daily Dish. March 9, 2009. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/gaza.html
McEvers, Kelly. "The AccoLade: Saudi Women Rock Out". All Things Considered. December 16, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98138992
Hancock, Stephanie. "Saudi lingerie trade in a twist". BBC News. February 25, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7908866.stm
Ryssdal, Kai and Samer Shehata. "Modernity and Islam go together". Marketplace. March 13, 2008. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/13/meaw_pm4_shehata_commentary/
you think it is right to whip women for talking to someone about bread?
obviously it is not just old women, you guys rreally shape things to your preferences.
even then i dont know what the problem is with a country making the laws they want. i know i cannot say what another countries laws should be.
A possibly counterintuitive phenomenon in certain repressive societies is that as long as one follows certain specific strictures (which can of course be rather limiting), nobody really cares what else you do. You're wearing the right badge, and that's all that anyone worries about. The practices imposed to ensure the population's ideological purity end up becoming convenient pretenses for forgetting about the ideology entirely: it becomes a fixed cost. Inconvenient, to be sure, but also powerless to affect your inner spaces.
The kicker is that this depends on the strictures being relatively constant. The truly nasty authoritarians never allow their subjects to get that comfortable. Instead, they employ the much more ruthless approach of constantly shifting the required protocols and approved sentiments. By doing so, they ensure that the only way for the subjects to maintain their own security is to constantly stay one step ahead of the authority, and be willing to turn on others to prove theirr piety. It's this kind of constant, arbitrary assertion of authority that provides the results that the authorities truly desire (specifically, the elimination of alternative channels for social organization).
yeah but there's greater merit in acknowledging the biological differences, a 75 year old could die from that.
(Insert Title Here)
Tell us, John, what unbelievably massive intellectual prowess led you to that inquiry? Really, what about my post even suggests that?
Must have been when I said, "Yes, the Saud is crazy. It's dangerous. It's a scourge upon the Earth." Or, maybe, "So yes, whipping old women is wrong." I can see how that one might have been confusing.
True, indeed, but the appeal to emotion focuses on the facts of her age and sex.
Uh, John? I'm over here. Stop talking to the mirror.
Now this is a legitimate and challenging issue. And, no, people don't have a firm answer yet. But one thing that can be increasingly observed is that humanity is a single community.
A broader theme of equal protection thus arises; Americans, for instance, are accustomed to certain kinds of cultural shifts that transcend political boundaries. Anti-miscegenation laws, for instance. When those were struck down, the Court did not scrutinize every such law. When they struck down Virginia's law, the ruling legitimately applied to other states as well.
Is that concept confusing? I mean, sure, some find it objectionable, but is it confusing?
I would like you to imagine, please, what would happen if, under a rule of pure democracy, states like Kansas were allowed to deliberately twist their students' minds and leave them unprepared to compete in the job market? So let's skip a few years ahead and think about it. You have thousands upon thousands of Kansas high school graduates who can get into middling and lower-tier universities, but they're not getting accepted into science and medicine programs at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Rice, or other prestigious universities. And they're not succeeding in the job market.
So imagine the CNN debate for a moment. On the one side is the advocate who says it's discrimination against Christians and "middle America". To the other is a university professor that explains that he can't hold back an entire university's science program in order to explore untestable assertions like the existence of God. Neither is he going to tie the curve into a knot so that God becomes the explanation for everything scientific.
So the one argues that his kind are being discriminated against while the other argues that this is how that kind wanted things to be. It's not the same kind of discrimination, though. I mean, yes, there's basic discrimination like being able to tell mint chocolate chip from cookies and cream, but it's just not the same. Would you say that someone who fails a driving test after driving in the wrong lane, turning the wrong way onto a one-way street, running a red light, and hitting both cars in the parallel parking test was being unfairly discriminated against?
Equal protection. Equal opportunity. If students in Kansas learn proper science, it isn't a nullification of their faith, but it will help them survive or even prosper in society.
Extend that idea across international boundaries.
One of the causes of war is the manipulation of political and economic access. People who feel deprived often decide to claim what they think is rightfully theirs. We see this in the fact of Saudi chick band, and activists bold enough to say that if women are going to buy lingerie to please their husbands, they ought to at least be able to get stuff that fits, and without being harassed or leered at by male clerks. This is the sort of thing that one can usually resolve peacefully, although it takes a long time.
With other stuff, though, like starving children or aberrantly high mortality and morbidity rates for simple diseases, constant warfare, and commercial demands that require petty tyrants, it isn't quite as simple.
To the other, though, people all over the world acknowledge human rights. And some would say that participation in the human community should hinge, at least in part, on such acknowledgment. One can agree or disagree. That's up to them. But this, at least, is where the idea comes from.
John99 said:
Tell us, John, what unbelievably massive intellectual prowess led you to that inquiry? Really, what about my post even suggests that?
Must have been when I said, "Yes, the Saud is crazy. It's dangerous. It's a scourge upon the Earth." Or, maybe, "So yes, whipping old women is wrong." I can see how that one might have been confusing.
True, indeed, but the appeal to emotion focuses on the facts of her age and sex.
Uh, John? I'm over here. Stop talking to the mirror.
Now this is a legitimate and challenging issue. And, no, people don't have a firm answer yet. But one thing that can be increasingly observed is that humanity is a single community.
A broader theme of equal protection thus arises; Americans, for instance, are accustomed to certain kinds of cultural shifts that transcend political boundaries. Anti-miscegenation laws, for instance. When those were struck down, the Court did not scrutinize every such law. When they struck down Virginia's law, the ruling legitimately applied to other states as well.
Is that concept confusing? I mean, sure, some find it objectionable, but is it confusing?
I would like you to imagine, please, what would happen if, under a rule of pure democracy, states like Kansas were allowed to deliberately twist their students' minds and leave them unprepared to compete in the job market? So let's skip a few years ahead and think about it. You have thousands upon thousands of Kansas high school graduates who can get into middling and lower-tier universities, but they're not getting accepted into science and medicine programs at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Rice, or other prestigious universities. And they're not succeeding in the job market.
So imagine the CNN debate for a moment. On the one side is the advocate who says it's discrimination against Christians and "middle America". To the other is a university professor that explains that he can't hold back an entire university's science program in order to explore untestable assertions like the existence of God. Neither is he going to tie the curve into a knot so that God becomes the explanation for everything scientific.
So the one argues that his kind are being discriminated against while the other argues that this is how that kind wanted things to be. It's not the same kind of discrimination, though. I mean, yes, there's basic discrimination like being able to tell mint chocolate chip from cookies and cream, but it's just not the same. Would you say that someone who fails a driving test after driving in the wrong lane, turning the wrong way onto a one-way street, running a red light, and hitting both cars in the parallel parking test was being unfairly discriminated against?
Equal protection. Equal opportunity. If students in Kansas learn proper science, it isn't a nullification of their faith, but it will help them survive or even prosper in society.
Extend that idea across international boundaries.
One of the causes of war is the manipulation of political and economic access. People who feel deprived often decide to claim what they think is rightfully theirs. We see this in the fact of Saudi chick band, and activists bold enough to say that if women are going to buy lingerie to please their husbands, they ought to at least be able to get stuff that fits, and without being harassed or leered at by male clerks. This is the sort of thing that one can usually resolve peacefully, although it takes a long time.
With other stuff, though, like starving children or aberrantly high mortality and morbidity rates for simple diseases, constant warfare, and commercial demands that require petty tyrants, it isn't quite as simple.
To the other, though, people all over the world acknowledge human rights. And some would say that participation in the human community should hinge, at least in part, on such acknowledgment. One can agree or disagree. That's up to them. But this, at least, is where the idea comes from.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I have not murdered anyone - innocent or guilty. I just object to restriction of freedom, whether it comes from a self-righteous US president directing ill conceived, indiscriminate 'retaliation', or the mysoginistic, mentally retarded treatment of an elderly woman.
It does your case no good and oodles of harm to fail to utterly condemn inhuman treatment whatever its source. Your stance on issues like this are doing almost as much harm to the cause of peaceful Moslems as reports on yet another suicide bomber.
Don't you think it is about time you grew up?
I did, I stopped pretending I need to apologise for any Muslim anywhere. Its just fodder for those who want to rant against Muslims anyway. I would encourage all Muslims to stop apologising.
I understand that all muslims shouldn't have to answer for the misdeeds of some of them. But -some- of them do indeed do bad things and I certainly think that -they- should apologize. Before you do the turn around thing, yes, some people from western nations do bad things too. Due to their relative power, I can even agree that they do more killing, for instance. However, I've already expressed to you my belief that if muslim nations had such power, I think things would be worse, not better, atleast for a time. Something like the chaos of the middle ages when the Roman Empire fell. Necessary perhaps but I'm sure many did not enjoy those 'interesting times'.
Then you're another one I have nothing to say to. When you're interested in discussing human rights, let me know and I'll have an opinion. But bring religion into it and you've completely lost me. I refuse to pander to bigots.
Wikipedia begins its article on Bigotry thusly:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offence to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset.
You say you have nothing to say to me; apparently you have taken offense to an opinion of mine, voiced in what I believe to be a civil manner, that differs from yours. Anyway, I'm still willing to talk to -you- S.A.M.
You know, any implication that maybe Islam is a rigid belief system incompatable with modern ideas about human rights, women's rights, and science is just bigotry, probably encouraged by an atheist Zionist conspiracy and/or the freemasons.
I believe there are nearly a billion muslims worldwide. Generally speaking, I'm not very impressed with the religion, but I can certainly believe that some muslims are more enlightened then some theists of other stripes, pantheists or atheists.
However, in this particular case, I was referring to S.A.M.'s statement concerning bigots and then essentially saying that the statement concerning muslims at the top of this post suggested that I was one myself, atleast in so far as that statement went and then saying that she had nothing to say to me on such things. Now I understand that S.A.M. has had some rough times here and I'm sure that people have treated both her and her religion more roughly then I have, but I don't think that justifies her lumping such people in with me simply because I do, indeed, believe that some muslims should apologize for deeds they've done that I believe S.A.M. knows are wrong.
- Status