Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

[James R]

SAM:

I've linked many of those pictures before and they are from mainstream news media which I assumed is the criteria for appropriateness on sciforums. Now I find that the one photo which is NOT from mainstream media is the one not moderated. So I understand that the moderation is arbitrary

sciforums is not obliged to adopt the policy of any external news medium, mainstream or otherwise.

Besides, none of the images you posted were censored. They were just converted to links with appropriate warnings, thus providing readers with a choice as to whether or not to view them.

Where I live, when any TV news report showed the Abu Graib torture photos, the report was always preceeded by a warning that some viewers might find the images disturbing. Such warnings are commonplace in the "mainstream media" where I live. Once again, the aim is to give viewers a choice about what they wish to view.

No I think the civil liberties union does a fine job

I wonder whether they have ever brought a case for the right of children, say, not to be exposed to certain imagery. I imagine they have. I guess you wouldn't think they were doing such a fine job there.

Thats the goal yes, maybe with greater awareness, you'd have less teenagers posing with dead children across the globe.

Maybe you'd have more.

People are old enough to be carpet bombed even before they are born but even adults are not old enough to see the results of the carpet bombing.

That's not my position.

Its about hypocrisy mostly. What choice do those starving or napalm bombed children have when it comes to being protected from reality?

It is unfortunate that these children have choice removed from them. The solution is not to remove choice from children elsewhere as well.

However, if a four year old is raped what would you tell her?

This all seems a little too hypthetical to you. It makes me uncomfortable.

And I suppose all kids should be shown war imagery, including bloody mutilations etc.

We can leave the parental supervision to parents.

I often read letters from parents to mainstream media outlets complaining about how their children are, against the parents' wishes, routinely exposed to violent and sexual imagery. Do you really think that the media have NO role to play at all when it comes to children's exposure to such things? You put the entire onus onto parents?

Note however, that the picture of the Vietnamese being shot was published in the mainstream newspapers and pictures of the dead were shown on television and in general news circulation so clearly there are differences in what is appropriate.

And differences between what was considered appropriate in 1970 compared to 2011, perhaps. Other things that we consider inappropriate today were also considered appropriate in 1970. Take drink driving, for example. There are many others.

I also note that children in war zones walk through these scenes and are not given the choice of avoiding them.

And your solution is to subject children who do not live in war zones to the same horrors, by proxy.

Note that in all cases YOU are talking about children as though they were unsupervised and free to choose while I am talking about people with the understanding that most people with children supervise them.

Not at all. In fact, it worries me profoundly that you seem to regard children as roughly equivalent to adults in terms of what you feel they ought to be exposed to. I feel that we have a duty to protect children.

I have seen children on supervised visits to the Holocaust museums.

How old were they? It is good to know that they were supervised. What does that suggest to you?

Children as young as 10 are considered by law as capable of giving consent to sex.

Only in barbaric, backward countries.

I don't know about you, but I'm in no way complicit in the Abu Graib tortures.

Then you must not pay any taxes that supported the war efforts in Iraq

I do not have a choice in paying taxes.

I do have a choice in which political party I vote into office, but that is a choice I have to share with somewhere between 10 and 20 million other people, some of whose opinions differ from my own.

To assume that the party that is elected in the end will automatically reflect all my personal opinons is naive in the extreme. To assume that the party currently in power is the one I voted for is naive. To assume that I agree with all the policies of the party I voted for is naive.

In short, this is a very weak argument, even in comparison to your usual standards.

No you believe in pixelating nipples because it is naive to believe that nudity does not have a sexual impact

That's one reason. There are others, some of which I have mentioned above more than once.

The two mainstreams newspapers that I regularly read NEVER publish "uncensored" full-frontal nudity, male or female, under any circumstances. Why? Because their readers prefer that they do not do so. It is considered inappropriate in a respectable news publication.

Australia bans small breasts. ... [/snip]

So how does censoring small breasts contribute to the sexual culture of Australians? What changes have they created? Are more women going in for breast augmentation, for example?

Hard to comment on this without the context, but my first impression is that any banning of small breasts was probably in response to concerns about the depiction of young children (girls) in sexual contexts.

I don't know how old this story is, or whether these supposed "bans" have been rolled back or exceptions made for certain types of publications. Even your own source seems to say that the adverse consequences were unintended.

What impact has this had on the sexual culture of Australians? I'd estimate: none at all.

As is normal with you when bringing up Australian stories, you are woefully ignorant of "Australian culture". Usually, you're also years out of date. I haven't checked this one on that score.

So is the female breast so obscene? Does the Apple policy apply to male nipples?

You'll have to take it up with Apple. I don't speak for them.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

As much as Fraggle, GeoffP and others attack and demonise Muslims, Islam and Muslim countries perhaps?

I am an equal-opportunity demonizer. I have never set Islam up as being qualitatively worse than Christianity and Judaism.

I mean we have Fraggle in another thread speculating on how many Muslim men rape women when they come to the West, because apparently, that's sort of what they do if his tone is to be believed.

You once again misunderstood me, but another member did too so I obviously did not express myself well.

I was commenting on what appears to be the attitude of the leaders of fundamentalist Islamic societies: that men are incapable of controlling themselves sexually, so if they encounter a woman who is not completely rolled up in seven layers of cloth AND is not under guard by her father, brother or husband, then it must be assumed that those men will rape her at every opportunity. This is why when a woman is raped it is she who is prosecuted and punished, and the men (at least in some publicized cases) are not even tracked down, much less arrested. The rape is her fault, for being so foolish as to show her face in public or to drive a car.

How can Western men and Eastern men be so dramatically different, that we can be trusted and they can't? My point was that if this attitude is based on the actual behavior of these men, then they must be qualitatively different from the men in Western countries. We spend every day mingling with women who are not guarded by their male relatives and who (by the standards of those other countries) are dressed provocatively and (again by those standards) behave flirtatiously with us, even touching us and hugging us and using dirty language. Yet very few of us rape every woman we can get our hands on. In fact I, personally, have never even raped one woman, once!

My question was whether we are to believe this assessment by the Islamic leaders of the character of the men in their society. I made the suggestion that we should be able to figure that out by studying the behavior of the many men from those countries who have emigrated and now live among us. If the mullahs of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries are correct, then Iranian, Saudi and other male immigrants in America must have rap sheets an inch thick of all the rapes they've committed in our country.

So I asked if anyone knows whether, in fact, they do. It was a snarky question and we all know the answer. Even if we didn't, the fact that they're not all serving life terms in prison for their second rape conviction gives it away.

My wife always lays her head in her hands and laments the fact that I was born without the enzyme to digest sarcasm. I never get it when I hear it, and when I try to produce it I never get it right.

Sorry, folks.

 

[James R]

Bells:

Wasn't it obvious that I meant a written attack? Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to SAM's usual penchant for threads that attempt to demonise "the West", and the US in particular.

As much as Fraggle, GeoffP and others attack and demonise Muslims, Islam and Muslim countries perhaps?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The point was simple. The images from Abu Graib were plastered everywhere in the media, and the torture uncensored.

That's not what I recall. I recall constant warnings on TV news reports about images that may disturb, plus carefully selection of the images published in newspapers and the like, plus blacked-out portions of certain photos (e.g. to hide faces and in some cases genitals and injuries).

Maybe you viewed different media from me.

Yet a girl's very artistic protest against her tight fisted regime which censores art and denies women equal rights is censored because it involved an artistic nude image.

See my reply to SAM, above. In the newspapers I read regularly, ALL full-frontal images like that one are routinely pixellated or blacked-out, if they are published at all. Again, maybe you rely on different media. But with only two major newspaper companies owning all mainstream newspapers in Australia, I seriously doubt it.

Oh James deems it to be "garbage" and thus it is so!

Certainly. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are entitled to yours. So is Fraggle, for that matter.

I beg to differ. I have the right to my opinion. Last I checked, you were not the thought police. Yes, you removed the images in accordance to the rules and because Arthur was offended by nipples. But that you don't censor or infract others who have gone on and made very racist, abusive and insulting remarks in this thread shows where the priorities lie. Point taken.

Please cite the relevant content and link to the posts and we'll take a look together, if you like.

Also, your assumption that I acted only because Arthur wanted me to doesn't credit me with much independence of judgment, does it? Is that really what you think?

You said that you agreed with Fraggle that the images used in this thread were garbage.

From memory, I was quite careful about what I said, and that wasn't it. Moreover, if by some chance I wasn't clear the first time, the next two or three times I was crystal clear about the whole "garbage" thing. Yet you seem to insist on still misunderstanding my meaning. Why?

How about next time, you read the entire thread instead of choice posts posted to you via reports before you make such a comment?

I did that this time, before editing anything or handing out any infractions.

So you want me to start a separate thread about media censorship instead of discussing it in this thread which deals specifically with media censorship?

Frankly, I doubt that mature discussion about the general issue of media censorship is possible here. So never mind. We can just continue in this thread.

Introducing the Abu Graib images into this thread was gratuitous, insensistive to the victims and to potential readers, and an off-topic distraction besides.

I beg to differ. Had you read the entire thread, it would have been obvious why those images were used as a comparison with what is censored in the media and what is not.

I did read the entire thread. I told you that in my last post. But obviously the thread I read was different from the thread you read. In my opinion, the Abu Graib images were introduced by SAM for no reason other than to twist the knife further in the belly of the "evil west".

Yes. I've read the whole thing.

Having a slow day?

As it happens, for the first time in about two weeks I had a couple of hours to sit down surf sciforums in one stretch. So, relatively speaking, yes. A slow day.

How do you think her image has been censored in the Western media James? I'll give you a hint.. Look at where her boobs are meant to be and where her vagina is meant to be and tell me what you see....

Why do you think it is important that we in the evil west see her boobs and vagina? Is her story not complete without us seeing them? Won't we get the gist and the point of her protest if we don't see them?

Please explain, because I'm obviously not getting this crucial point and I really want it explained.

So images and films of a soldier throwing a dog off a cliff, the film footage of the sexual assault on the mentally disabled girl by a bunch of school boys, the hacking away at people in the Rwandan genocide and in East Timor, to name a few.. None of that was censored.

Those things were all censored in the news media I viewed - both on TV and in newspapers and their online media sites.

For example, take the sexual assault case you mention - I think I know the one you mean. What I remember seeing was some grainy footage selected from an entire lengthy recording. The footage shown did not show any sexual acts, but merely a girl surrounded by that bunch of school boys. Some taunts were heard. I can't recall seeing any of the actual sexual assault footage, though I'm sure that it was ALL filmed.

Footage from East Timor and Rwanda was also "censored".

Do you equate human nudity with pornography? I would imagine not, since you are an intelligent individual.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. No, I do not equate nudity with pornography.

But if we were to cater to the idiots in society, then all art would be censored and the statue of David would have his genitals hacked off, because someone, somewhere will find it pornographic.

Yes. And so we cater to some kind of "average" in society. While SAM (and you, I guess) would be quite happy for violence and sex in its worst manifestations to be splashed all over out nightly 6 pm TV news bulletins, this is not the view of the majority in the society in which you and I live. Call me old-fashioned or prudish in this regard if you like, but in this instance I happen to be part of this majority that doesn't want my children exposed at 6 pm to Rwandan mutilated corpses or images of the abuse of a young girl.

 

[S.A.M.]

See my reply to SAM, above. In the newspapers I read regularly, ALL full-frontal images like that one are routinely pixellated or blacked-out, if they are published at all

Yes, this is why its called a social taboo - ever seen magazines in Saudi Arabia? Yet, they have porn on cable TV.

Did the Australian newspapers publish the pictures of Abu Ghraib?

No they showed them on television

An image screened on the Australian TV station SBS of purported torture at Abu Ghraib...Previously unpublished images showing US troops apparently abusing detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 were broadcast today by an Australian television station.

Still and video images were broadcast on Dateline, a current affairs programme on SBS television, which appeared to show dead bodies and Iraqi prisoners being tortured by US troops.

In one piece of footage, an Iraqi detainee was seen slamming his head repeatedly into a metal door, with guards apparently unwilling to intervene and stop him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/15/iraq.usa

But nipples? Thats pornography; people being tortured to death? Thats NEWS! Do Australians blur out nipples in National Geographic? Is it considered an Adult magazine?

Interesting addendum to the Egyptian girl who stripped. The new Haredi fashions in Jerusalem

That should make all the family friendly men very happy. Now I wonder, what happens when these Jewish women visit France? Will the French strip off their veils? We'll wait and see how that hypocrisy is worked out to the satisfaction of the moral police

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Yes, this is why its called a social taboo - ever seen magazines in Saudi Arabia? Yet, they have porn on cable TV.

1.You mean Satellite TV, I assume.
Receiving the stations would still be illegal there. Or Not?
The odd Phillippino male servant must surely be whipped for watching it as an example to all good Saudi men.
If that didn't happen it wouldn't be good old Saudi, would it?

2. Women wearing Burkas are dressing like tarts in comparison with the Haredi women.
Extremist loony Zionists 1, Extremist loony Islamists, 0.

Woman showing all she's got.

Should I have put a link to this?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Its ironic really. An Egyptian blogger posted full frontal nude pictures of herself on her blog to protest the authoritarianism against women and all the pictures of her in western media outlets are censored!!

Women stripping as a form of protest. The least annoying form of protesting. Here's another example for you

Giving a new meaning to "Gaza Strip," forty Israeli women disrobed in solidarity with the nude Cairo blogger, twenty-year-old Aliaa Elmahdy, who kicked up a ruckus and a fundamentalist backlash when she bared all on her Facebook page last week to protest the repessiveness of Islamism in Egypt (photo below). The forty Israeli women may have been mindful of the holy significance of the number forty: days it rained in the Flood, days of Moses and God at the Sinai summit. London's Daily Mail*was all over the story, including this photo from the front (above). Or Templar, 28, one of the organizers, wrote this cri de coeur: "Girls, let's give the world a good reason to see the unique beauty of Israeli women.

http://blog.bestamericanpoetry.com/...011/11/nudity-protest-spreads-to-israel-.html
An interesting note relative to the censorship in the original picture, although these woman did all strip, they seem to be self censoring to achieve the same effect those horrible Western media types imposed on Aliaa Elmahdy's photo.

 

[S.A.M.]

An interesting note relative to the censorship in the original picture, although these woman did all strip, they seem to be self censoring to achieve the same effect those horrible Western media types imposed on Aliaa Elmahdy's photo.

I know. The self censorship gives a whole new meaning to the words behind them. Show You Are Not Afraid. Apparently, this is done only by showing what is considered socially acceptable. In a country with gay nude beaches where people stripped en masse for the Dead Sea photoshoot. What does that tell you?

nekked people in Israel

From the Jewish burqa competition controversy:

The burka as a mode of dress for Haredi women was encouraged by "Rabbanit" Bruria Keren, an Israeli religious leader who teaches a strict interpretation of Jewish scripture for female adherents.

"I follow these rules of modesty to save men from themselves. A man who sees a woman's body parts is sexually aroused, and this might cause him to commit sin. Even if he doesn't actually sin physically, his impure thoughts are sin in themselves."

The response to them is equally interesting:

So far, one has only heard of "Taliban mothers," haredi women covered head to toe, including a headscarf, much like Afghani women living under Taliban rule. But now one finds little girls too, the daughters of these "Taliban mothers," walking around outdoors in full body coverage.


Since no haredi school is willing to let these girls in, they go to improvised schools in Beit Shemesh and Jerusalem founded especially for them by their mothers. Needless to say these schools and the curriculum are not supervised by the Education Ministry.


This phenomenon has raised many eyebrows within the haredi community. "Taliban women" and their daughters are outcasts on haredi streets. They encounter looks of disgust, bullying and constant humiliation.


M., a member of the anti-Zionist Hasidic movement Toldos Aharon, lives in Jerusalem. He said he has seen young men come up to these women trying to pull off their head covers.


"There are guys who will approach a woman and say things like: 'You look like a suicide bomber' or 'I guess your face is ugly if you keep it hidden.' There are also those who spit on them and curse at them, or just badger them with cameras so they'll run away."


His daughter, however, sees nothing wrong with her unusual appearance. "I think that seculars, who are used to seeing girls dressed in minimal clothing, are the weird ones," she said. "As far as I'm concerned, I'm following the rules of modesty which are also meant to save men from themselves. A man who sees a woman's body parts is sexually aroused, and this might cause him to commit sin. Even if he doesn't actually sin physically, his impure thoughts are sin in themselves."


But what about little girls? Why do 6-year-olds need to walk around covered head-to-toe? "There are enough men who look at them as sexual objects. Such values must be taught at an early age," she explained.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4021877,00.html

In short, they are BOTH responses to weak self restraint in men. So lets hear it from the men. Whats responsible for their inability to exercise self restraint?

 

[S.A.M.]

1.You mean Satellite TV, I assume.
Receiving the stations would still be illegal there. Or Not?
The odd Phillippino male servant must surely be whipped for watching it as an example to all good Saudi men.
If that didn't happen it wouldn't be good old Saudi, would it?

Yup sorry satellie TV and no its not illegal since its available 24/7 hard core porn

"This is the apparatus of a totalitarian state," Bradley suggests, but a totalitarian state that has satellite TV with 24-hour hard-core porn, Internet access and gambling, and -- until the censors stopped it -- the exiled Islamist dissident Saad al-Faqih beaming vitriol over Reform TV against the al-Saud princes as "thieves who should be beheaded."

http://www.islamdaily.org/en/saudi-arabia/3606.walkers-world-the-real-saudi-arabia.htm

2. Women wearing Burkas are dressing like tarts in comparison with the Haredi women.
Extremist loony Zionists 1, Extremist loony Islamists, 0.

The Haredim are not Zionists - although some have adapted to Zionism; Zionism is essentially an atheist movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism

Should I have put a link to this?

That depends on the personal preference of the family friendly mods. I think some of them find the burqa reminiscent of criminals so it might be termed an offensive picture.

 

[Emil]

I imagine because that would be really unpleasant when perusing frozen foods...open freezer door...sudden attack of beachweenie...

Big deal!

 

[Anti-Flag]

You once again misunderstood me, but another member did too so I obviously did not express myself well.

For what it's worth I read the comment too and understood it perfectly well, so I don't think it was your expression that was the issue, just the people looking to demonise you.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Yup sorry satellie TV and no its not illegal since its available 24/7 hard core porn

That it is available, does not mean it is legal.
Drink is available 24/7 if you pay the price required.
You would still end up in prison and then be deported if you were caught with it.

That Haredi woman reminds me of the Elephant Man.
Do you remember the Film?

"I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!! I AM A HUMAN "

Haredis and Zionism. You are right. Yes, it seems they are often disliked by the Zionists, who think they don't contribute enough.
One Zionist caused a minor storm by expressing a wish that they could be gassed.
Whatever you do, someone will hate you for it.

You might find this interesting if you haven't seen it before:
Why are haredim hated? (Jerusalem Post)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960796/posts

 

[madanthonywayne]

In short, they are BOTH responses to weak self restraint in men. So lets hear it from the men. Whats responsible for their inability to exercise self restraint?

We males are slaves to our sex drives. When you consider that from an evolutionary biology perspective our intellect and abilities exist only to increase our reproductive success; is that such a surprise?

Newsflash: Sexy Women Ruin Men's Decision-Making Ability
Robert Paul ReyesApril 27, 2006
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that a beautiful woman will wreak havoc with a man's cognitive skills and decision making-ability.

But now researchers from the University of Leuven in Belgium have proven the obvious.

The researchers had male volunteers play a financial game, some of the men were shown images of beautiful women, and some were not. The guys who were shown the sexy images were more likely to accept unfair offers than men who hand not been exposed to sexy photographs.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/8764
And that's not the only such study.

“Chatting to a pretty woman is bad for a man’s brain – and the prettier she is, the worse it gets. Males who spend even a few minutes in the company of an attractive female perform less well in brain tests than those with someone they do not fancy. Researchers think it is because men use up so much of the brain trying to impress beautiful women. But women are not affected by chatting to a handsome man. This may be because men are programmed by evolution to think more about mating opportunities.” The Mirror writes of the findings of the study.

Researchers came up with the idea for the study when one of them suddenly found himself in a strange position, that of not being able to remember his own home address when asked for it by a beautiful woman. In order to establish the kind of impact an attractive lady’s presence had on a man’s intellect, the Dutch psychologists gathered 40 male volunteer students and sat them down with beautiful women. Then, they asked them to complete several intelligence tests – not to their surprise, men performed worse than how they did when not in contact with the women.

Dr. George Fieldman of the British Psychological Society explains this by men not being able to focus on something else save mating. “When a man meets a pretty woman he is ‘reproductively focused.’ But a woman also looks for other signs such as wealth, youth and kindness. The look of a man alone would be unlikely to have the same effect.” Fieldman says for The Mirror.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Chat...Woman-Makes-Men-Less-Intelligent-120936.shtml
That second study is even more interesting because it shows that a woman's intellectual capacity is not affected by being in the presence of an attractive man.

The Rock band Kiss made note of this phenomenon in the song Domino

"Every damn time I walk through that door, it's the same damn thing. That bitch bends over, and I forget my name - ow!"​

 

[Gustav]

indeed
i'd wager that it is actually enhanced
the calculus of estimation can get quite complex

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

That should make all the family friendly men very happy. Now I wonder, what happens when these Jewish women visit France? Will the French strip off their veils?

Of course they will. You forget the fact (I'd say that you conveniently ignore it but that would be to accuse you once again of intellectual dishonesty) that in France it is, for all intents and purposes, virtually illegal to identify people by religion.

I would certainly do it in the USA, and I don't care if they're Muslims, Jews, Christians, Rastafarians, Scientologists or atheists. We are not comfortable with people who hide their faces, because in our culture (except on Halloween or in below-zero weather) that can only mean one thing: they are robbers.

This raises a point I keep meaning to bring up. One of the problems American soldiers had when they first invaded the Middle East was distrust by the local people because they all wore sunglasses. They did not feel comfortable making agreements with people whose eyes they could not see.

This is exactly the way we feel about women who completely cover their faces. We cannot trust them.

Zionism is essentially an atheist movement.

When are you going to stop pretending to be an expert on Jewish culture, religion and politics? Every time you open your mouth you stick your foot in it. A quick Google would have listed articles that disagree with the ones you refer to. This issue has toggled back and forth over the decades. Today Zionism has considerable religious support, although I can't say whether it's a majority--and I'm certain you can't either. Particularly in the USA, most of the older, Orthodox Jews are passionate about Zionism, while a large number of the younger, Reform and nonreligious secular Jews are rather disgusted with the State of Israel. Considering that our country houses more than one-third of the world's Jewish population, almost the same number as live in Israel, the opinions of our Jews matter a great deal statistically.

That depends on the personal preference of the family friendly mods. I think some of them find the burqa reminiscent of criminals so it might be termed an offensive picture.

It's a fucking ninja outfit! Did you never go to the movies when you lived among us, learning so much about our culture and politics that you're now an expert???

Oh wait, I guess you didn't! You've never seen a Western, or you'd understand why we don't allow people to walk around in masks.

For what it's worth I read the comment too and understood it perfectly well, so I don't think it was your expression that was the issue, just the people looking to demonise you.

This is a long thread and I'm sure not too many people have read the whole thing. It's easy to misinterpret a post. They may not have realized that I was referring back to my own post, since I didn't quote it.

We males are slaves to our sex drives. When you consider that from an evolutionary biology perspective our intellect and abilities exist only to increase our reproductive success.

But the history of our species has been to transcend nature, both the external environment (turning rocks into tools, taming fire, domesticating animals, building roofs over our heads) and our own internal nature (giving up the nomadic hunter-gatherer life for which our instincts are tuned, learning to live in harmony and cooperation with people outside our family, letting wolves cuddle up with our children).

Our uniquely massive forebrain grants us the unique ability to override instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. Unlike all other vertebrates, we are most emphatically not slaves to our instincts.

 

[S.A.M.]

This is exactly the way we feel about women who completely cover their faces. We cannot trust them.

Indeed.

Sister Cora-Ann, a Catholic nun from the Our Lady of Grace Monastery in Dayton, Ohio got the surprise of her life yesterday, when she was asked to leave the plane she had just boarded at the Omaha International Airport.


"I had just sat down in my seat, and started to thank God for our blessings and recite a prayer in Latin", she recalled, when one of the passengers sitting next to me called the flight attendant.

The passenger was Elizabeth Bennet, who later stated: "It is not that we were prejudiced, but she did seem very suspicious. She was dressed in Muslim garb and just before we were about to take off, she started mumbling something in an Arabian or Talibani-sounding language. What was I supposed to do?"

Damien Thorn was a passenger seated in the adjacent row and said: "I knew there was something sinister about her, the moment she stepped into the plane. She was wearing those burqa clothes that you see the Iranian women wearing, and she only had a very small carry-on bag." The flight attendant responded to the call and asked Sister Cora-Ann for her name, boarding pass and a photo ID.

Blanche Dubois was another passenger sitting close to Sister Cora-Ann and explained: "Once I heard that her name sounded like Koran, I got worried. That does not mean that there is anything wrong with me, does it? I just did not want to die. I was so scared, that I just yelled out her name to all passengers."


Mr. Okonkwo was a passenger seated a few rows behind and stated: "Once we all heard that the passenger's name was Koran, things started falling apart."


Frodo Baggins, a frequent traveler, said he had heard that Muslims do not eat beef. "I did not think that she was Muslim, and to help her out, I took out some of my beef jerky and asked the lady to eat it to prove that she was not a Muslim."

However, Sister Cora-Ann politely refused the beef jerky and reminded the other passengers that it was the time of Lent, during which Catholics often abstain from eating meat. The unrest in the plane kept growing, because most passengers were now convinced that Sister Cora-Ann was indeed Muslim and they demanded that Sister Cora-Ann leave the plane. "I did not want to cause my fellow humans any distress, so I left the plane", she said.

"We were so happy that we could continue our journey", said Frodo Baggins. "Once she de-boarded, it felt like a huge burden was lifted from us."

Apparently, there was indeed a Muslim on the plane, by the name of Abdullah Abdullah the 23rd, sitting in the last row. "Of course I knew that she was a Catholic nun and not a Muslim, because I went to a Catholic school and my favorite teachers were Catholic nuns." Abdullah Abdullah went on to say "But let us face it: If you are a Muslim on a plane and someone else is being asked to leave the plane, the best thing is to be quiet and enjoy the show!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jalees-rehman/catholic-nun-forcibly-rem_b_843485.html

We males are slaves to our sex drives. When you consider that from an evolutionary biology perspective our intellect and abilities exist only to increase our reproductive success; is that such a surprise?

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/8764
And that's not the only such study.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Chat...Woman-Makes-Men-Less-Intelligent-120936.shtml
That second study is even more interesting because it shows that a woman's intellectual capacity is not affected by being in the presence of an attractive man.

The Rock band Kiss made note of this phenomenon in the song Domino

"Every damn time I walk through that door, it's the same damn thing. That bitch bends over, and I forget my name - ow!"​

Hmm so you're saying, outside the Haredim and the Saudis it would be hard to find a man not rendered stupid by exposure to attractive women?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Our uniquely massive forebrain grants us the unique ability to override instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. Unlike all other vertebrates, we are most emphatically not slaves to our instincts.

Perhaps slaves slightly over states things. As you point out, we can choose to "rise above" our baser instincts. However, as the articles referenced in my previous post point out, the cognitive ability granted to us by that massive forebrain that we depend upon to override instinctive behaviors is diminished just when we need it the most.

How many intelligent, successful men have given in to temptation and had their lives destroyed as a result? It happens so often it's a cliche.

 

[Anti-Flag]

This is a long thread and I'm sure not too many people have read the whole thing. It's easy to misinterpret a post. They may not have realized that I was referring back to my own post, since I didn't quote it.

True enough, and perhaps I'm just being a shade cynical. I did feel the presence of a question mark was somewhat of a giveaway as to it not being a statement of belief. I'd speculate that misrepresentation seems to be becoming a habit for some around here, intentional or otherwise.
You're obviously a far more generous and patient person than I am of course.

 

[chimpkin]

SAM...um, just checking to make sure you noticed that was a satire piece about the nun...
Blanche DuBois and Frodo Baggins would hardly end up on the same plane section..she flies first class, he gets carried by giant eagles...

 

[Emil]

Our uniquely massive forebrain grants us the unique ability to override instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. Unlike all other vertebrates, we are most emphatically not slaves to our instincts.

I agree.
This is one of the most important human characteristics. The ability to not act instinctive.
But there are also "animals", among humans.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM...um, just checking to make sure you noticed that was a satire piece about the nun...
Blanche DuBois and Frodo Baggins would hardly end up on the same plane section..she flies first class, he gets carried by giant eagles...

No kidding - should I be worried that its so hard to tell satire from reality? And what about Captain America who covers his face like sexy ninja?

How does he fly?