I double double dog dare yer!
Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
I double double dog dare yer!
you are absolutely clueless to the fact that you just stereotyped sam as a "conservative theist".
so....that would be you, geoff.
Hmm?
She has posted that she considers herself a Muslim, so I presume that would make her a Theist.
As to how conservative she is I don't think you can tell. It appears to be situational at best.
If she has to be conservative to fling poo on the West, well she will be conservative. If being conservative doesn't serve her in her spreading of hate for the west then she's not.
The only thing constant about SAM is her hatred for the West.
Everything is seen through that filter.
Arthur
She has posted that she considers herself a Muslim, so I presume that would make her a Theist.
As to how conservative she is I don't think you can tell. It appears to be situational at best.
If she has to be conservative to fling poo on the West, well she will be conservative. If being conservative doesn't serve her in her spreading of hate for the west then she's not.
The only thing constant about SAM is her hatred for the West.
Everything is seen through that filter.
Arthur
She doesn't rely on God as much as I would if I were a theist, so in my eyes, she doesn't appear to be particularly theistic.
This is my assessment, of course.
I asked her once about this, a while back, and she said that she doesn't pray five times a day and isn't a member of a Muslim congreagation.
Generally, this suggests that she is rather modern in her religiousness.
Well, I'm a Westerner, and sometimes even Sam wubs me.
I win. I commented prior to your post, as a matter of fact.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2862057&postcount=17
"Pretty much" in "many places". That's a fine strapping argument to false authority. How about a statistic? You know, math.
You find what hypocritical? I just reminded you that both male and female nudity is verboten. Your response it's hypocritical. So do you mean violence again, or what? And, if violence, how much violence? The media might let you get away with an ass cheek once in a while, and similarly some blood; but outright nudity and guts all over the place not so much. I feel these things are in parallel: they represent similar limits of expression. Do you have a comment on this?
All right, but this is one incidence. If you're still arguing that standards are becoming more strict, is there an example previously of tits and cleavage bouncing on Sesame Street prior to Katy Perry's appearance that was similarly censored. This is not an idle remark. It's central to your hypothesis of increasingly strict standards.
All right: I disagree. Egypt's standards for censorship certainly appear much more rigid than ours.
Oh, lord. Learn to read. I said I never criticize Islamic society (and, really, it's Islamist politics I'm concerned with, not Islam per se except where liturgical usage permits the former) on basis of my own religion. That is, I don't criticize Islamism or Islamofascism because of my marginal Catholicism. Nor do I criticize Muslims as you criticize Catholics for the very act of being Catholic, because of your underlying religious hatreds. So, learn to read. Oy.
Then you don't look too hard. Citing the "eminent" Mawdudi, especially on issues of the exclusion and marginalization of religious minorities, is sort of a tip-off.
And this is another entirely different issue.
Are you almost done with the absurd side of this discussion? Let me know when.
And back at you, again. :shrug: Any point to this?
That Sam and you are duplicitous players from the start. Tell you what: instead of hiding your argument behind lukewarm invective, why don't you just say precisely what you mean?
Which media? Who? To exactly - and please be precise - what are you referring? How did this further inflame opinion?
To avoid offending one section of society. And? Does this make the West relatively tolerant or intolerant? Please support your answers.
It's funny, but I don't think it has been perfect. And I don't care, because it's been a damn sight better than yours.
Before I get started on any of that nonsense - and you know precisely what I'm referring to with your post hoc sensitivities, etc, etc ad nauseam - why exactly should I believe you on this? I refer again to those post hoc sentiments when I remind you that you have a history of false dealings with me on the form so thick that it would dwarf a whale omelet. Even if Fraggle disliked or even bitterly hated Catholicism and Catholics, how exactly would that make him different from you? My suspicion is that he dislikes religion generally, without any specific targets, and I could hardly criticize him for it. Kindly old man front? Who exactly would care? Why would I think so? The fact of the matter is that it's you that's been the problem all along and continues to be: you project and project and rave against these strawmen. First James, then Fraggle, on this thread alone. Enough already.
Nope, but you don't - in my opinion - have the honesty and/or the capacity to understand the difference. Or even to recollect recent history, if it paints you in a bad light. So I guess I'm choosing dishonesty for you - again, in my opinion.
Goodbye...for probably at least a day or two, anyway.
you are absolutely clueless to the fact that you just stereotyped sam as a "conservative theist".
so....that would be you, geoff.
I'd be interested in seeing how you dance away from the requirement to prove that assertion, but would probably actually demean myself by watching the spectacle. So... please carry on by yourself. Thanks.
sure, just refer to geoffp and his "conservative theist" as the latest invocation of dishonest stereotype
what is that? some biblical exhortation to turn the other cheek? is that how you conduct yourself? here and irl? you will not punch back if physically capable of doing so? your piety rings hollow and this holier than thou sthick is nothing but a cheap and tawdry ploy to get you and your ilk on the offensive.
as for sam complaining......what the fuck? are you that disconnected to what transpires here? go look at sfog. inquire about her infractions. all are due to complaints by you and your ilk about her. you are in fact complaining right now
yes
the onus and burden of conducting a enlightened discourse clearly falls on sam. you are nothing but apologist for you and your ilks brand of partisanship. your incessant, one sided critique is a clear indication of that.
what would jesus do? seriously? can the fucking posturing, kiddo
indeed, pointing out instances of hypocrisy is bigotry. that pretty much dismisses your credibility here
wtf
here....
like bells said, this is the woman that flashed us.
also, you are being quite coy and bashful. you really consider her a fundy, dont you? be honest for once
what a peevishly juvenile ploy
wanna hear some conjecture that pertains to you?
/snicker
On second thought....
Well, that didn't help you much.
Maybe and maybe not. Again - NIMBY? Hypocrisy? Look these terms up, gustav.
Take your own medicine, gustav: I think I just said that. No remember Mawdudi, dudi? It's ok. You can slink away and pretend I didn't say it this time either.
wtf
here....
Well, that didn't help you much.
Maybe and maybe not. Again - NIMBY? Hypocrisy? Look these terms up, gustav.
Take your own medicine, gustav: I think I just said that. No remember Mawdudi, dudi? It's ok. You can slink away and pretend I didn't say it this time either.
/chuckle
i suppose one can wish that half assed assessment carried weight around these parts
what? sam is a guy?
ok
conservative theist/fundy theist/whatnot theist
they all exist, without the slightest bit of conflict and contradiction in your head. i suppose i knew this all along tho that knowledge was subsumed for the sake of charity. so no, i will drop the pretense
/kick
Oh I agree. I just wanted to fill in the gap and point out the only proof we have that this isn't underage porn is her own words. So there actually IS a valid reason to censor it (should that ever occur).
oh? perhaps you can work this for me......
Not publishing a photo is not the same as censoring it. (adoucette)
...in context and in general??
i wish to learn how to think rationally
Yup. Stiff upper lip.
Response about as expected.
Response about as expected. Slink boldly, Gus. Slink with your head high.
Next.
Her photo is available on her web site.
If you link to her site in an article explaining her reason she gives for posting her photo how is that censoring her?
The things that make her culture distasteful to our outlooks do not include the social prohibition on public/publicized nudity, as far as I can tell. In fact, such a protest would count as similarly radical within US society - indeed, there are a number of activist groups (nudist, gender-equality, animal rights, and otherwise) which employ exactly such tactics, and which receive essentially similar treatment in the mainstream press (covered for value as spectacle, with blurring/censorship).
So, again, I find the set of premises there just plain ill-posed - it's a crude elision between "we disapprove of the lack of gender equality in Arab society" and "we disapprove of prohibitions on publication of nudity."
Again, ill-posed. Where is your support for the attribution of motive there? Standards for treatment of news events including nudity was worked out over a long period, without any hard linkage to the question of depictions of violence, and including many other considerations besides straightforward assertions of "offensive to 'us'." I just don't see where you can point to any particular news editor anywhere and see where he's made such a judgement, or even undertaken a calculus that works in those terms.
And without that invented linkage, the point falls apart.
Not that I don't notice the variances in our cultural valuations of sexual content vs. violent content. I just don't think that the two relate to one another in the straightforward way that you suggest - there are myriad otehr considerations. Regardless, I don't find this phenomenon to be particularly limited to or exemplified by America. I'm sure if you spend a few minutes, you can come up with examples of societies that are vastly more puritanical about nudity/sexual content, and also at least as blase about violent content.
Social mores never do. They aren't the product of some philosophical exercise concerned with logical consistency and principle. This is also not unique to the USA.
None of which is to say that I'm opposed to analyzing all of that. Just that its abuse as a pretext to pigeonhole specific nationalities and kick up a flame war is, well, just that.
As am I, for that matter. But that makes both of us radicals, in America or Egypt, or most other places. There isn't a clash-of-civilizations angle to that position - it's a clash between the radical and the conservative, with players from various cultures on each side. This being yet another reason that the spinning of such into a West vs. Islam flamewar is facepalm material.
As are most of the world's populations. So, are you sure you really want to embrace the radical ideology to that point? Literally, to the point of denying that the vast majority of the world's population lacks any "shred of moral fiber?" Because that way lies totalitarianism. Probably you'd get further by starting with a compassionate, realistic premise - that people, generally, are basically good and want to do the right thing, but have various ideas and conceptions about the world which result in various outcomes - and then trying to relate to them from there. You're pretty much arguing yourself off into a corner here. And while such is great for perpetuating the aloof-outsider persona that can be so gratifying, it doesn't actually go anywhere.
Last edited:
? No. It was simply the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
While that idea does indeed appear in Christianity, it likewise appears in pretty much every system of human moral thought. It is considered the basis for all concepts of human rights.
But if I were going to go for some kind of impressive credentials for it, I'd be pointing not to Jesus (pretty committed atheist, myself) but Kant, and the sexy phrase "categorical imperative."
I generally treat people the way I'd like to be treated, yes.
The implication, if you bother to read my post in question, would be that I will not simultaneously complain that punching is evil and wrong, and then turn around and punch people and claim it's okay because they're punchers.
Sounds about right for the level of discourse available in this thread, and in particular as a response to S.A.M.'s program of debased bigotry. Nothing but hollow piety in the service of politicized ends, as far as I can see.
Not sure who you think "my ilk" are, but I'm not seeing much to complain about in that sense, here.
Indeed I am. S.A.M. is a serial offender who has succeeded in poisoning the environment here for years now, and who would rightly have been permabanned long ago, were she not able to effectively play off of the paralyzing white guilt of various parties here. I've pled with her to clean up her act for a long time now, and she persists in the shithead flaming and cheap troll threads. And her enables persist in apologizing for it, as some kind of exercise in self-flagellation. It's all fairly contemptible.
In so far as she should refrain from initiating troll threads based on cheap, self-serving fallacies, sure. I don't think it's unreasonable to critique the sort of discourse that a thread-initiator is fostering. Moreover, if I were to make a short list of posters who have been the most consistently, problematically toxic to respectful, adult dialogue here, S.A.M. would feature quite prominently. She's not the whole of the problem, by any means, but I don't see where that gives her a pass.
Say what you want about me, I suppose - but surely you can see how this exact criticism applies directly to, for example, S.A.M.? Or yourself?
It's interesting that you have, lately, become so totally unable to interact with me without heavy reliance on blatant miscontrual of my statements. Do you think this impresses anyone? By this point it barely arouses a shrug from me. I don't care what you think about my credibility here. I don't even care what you say about my credibility here, given how transparently prejudiced and ham-fisted such assertions have become. Heck, by this point your overblown strawman exercises are probably an active boost to my credibility.
