dialamah

I think that is just starting to happen too. It seems to have gone from men being free to beat on their wives/girlfriends without legal interference to being automatically assumed to be in the wrong, to a more balanced approach, legally speaking, but there is still a ways to go, IMO. Socially there is still the expectation that men should be a woman's punching bag without retaliation.

That may be, but I think there also needs to be a stronger condemnation of women who push, slap, kick, or punch men first knowing full well that they are constrained from retaliation. Men hurt too, after all, and some women are plenty strong enough to hurt a man even without a weapon. Because of this attitude, men will also not report physical abuse by their female partners because men should be able to 'take it'. Possibly the guy on the bus was trying the same, though hard to be sure. I saw no marks on her, but he had a bloody lip. I wonder if anyone would have eventually held the girl back; they sure jumped on him quick enough, but she seemed free to continue punching as long as she wanted. Nobody should ever resort to violence, IMO, but I think it's fair that women should understand their own violence can result in violence returned and they should take responsibility for that. Mostly from the chivalrous age, I believe, when women were placed on a pedestal and worshipped from afar. A woman was a paragon of virtue, in theory, and would never behave in a manner requiring correction. Imagine a man's surprise and ire when closer acquaintance revealed a less perfect being. A man's home was his castle and clearly, some women required help to learn their place in it. The Bible provided plenty of backup for the notion that men should control women and so the Church could only advise women to be a good and obedient wife. The attitude that women are more virtuous than men is also why courts haven't traditionally imposed such harsh sentences on women as they have on men. I know of no culture that deems it acceptable to harm women physically. I also know of no culture that doesn't do so anyway, often under the conviction that their deity or deities made men the authority over women.

Goes along with our culture of celebrity worship. Trump got elected on it and O'Leary tricked his believers on it. Its not so much JT is shallow, but that our society is and he's using that.

True, there were unknown dynamics. Until she aimed for his face he didn't seem interested in fighting back either. Do you suppose you have a tipping point even with almost 60 years of societal conditioning? Why is it more acceptable for women to be violent? This has also spilled over into our justice system, where women tend to be more gently treated than men for similar crimes. If gender equality is to be achieved, shouldn't it also apply to women?

Perhaps the tide of accommodation is turning. UK University closes Muslim prayer room.

I don't think its new or unusual either. But in a case of domestic violence, with no witnesses, who is going to be at fault if the police are called? Who is most likely to lose access to his home and his kids, because female violence toward men is more acceptable. "Might have had it coming" also bothers me. He may well have been an asshole, but I don't think that excuses her actions at all. When she attacked he wasn't even talking to her.

How many political offices has Jared been given? Can you imagine if Obama had given positions to his wife, or other family members? Or if Hillary had been elected and placed her daughter in positions of power. But no problem if it's Trump, eh?

I believe I've already acknowledged that Canada is no better in this regard.

Haha, funny. Not even kidding.

I remember thinking that was ridiculous, and I liked Obama. He has never deserved it despite his rhetoric. Still I do think he really did his best for Americans overall and expect history will consider him one of the best presidents, when objectivity prevails.

They 'don't know about it' because SA has oil and SA is buying billions of dollars of arms. What more reason would they need for being 'deaf, dumb and blind'?

Which is probably why I don't automatically assume that all Muslims hate all Westerners, or Jews or Christians or that they're just waiting to turn into blood-thirsty killers of non-Muslims, gays, and immoral women. Still, if one can't expect the best from the leaders of the world, what hope is there for any of us? How is Saudi the "lesser evil"? Why should Saudi get a pass on the evil they do, whilst Iran does not? I understand it's the Biblical truth found in 1 Timothy 6:10 "The love of money is the root of all evil", SA has more money to give the West than Iran does, so it's safe to disapprove of Iran. Evil continues to flourish in both countries, but only one is held to account. by those who profess a moral high ground Sad, isn't it?

I won't say your interpretation is wrong, although it wasn't the slowness of the speech that made me think of someone drugged, but the lack of crispness. On the other hand, perhaps he always talks that way and I never noticed before. Fair? I agree that the only option for fighting terrorists in the region is military and that it is primarily up to the affected nations themselves to do so. Unfortunately, I also don't think it's going to work until, as Trump suggested, the people and nations themselves change some things about their own culture. I agree here also, although the lack of education and poverty doesn't apply to those who come from Western countries to fight on behalf of ISIS. How do we address that? At the moment, I don't think the response to this is quite firm enough. It wasn't that I disagreed with everything the speech said, but that the hypocrisy just turns my stomach. Sanctioning Iran, while pretending that SA has had nothing to do with terrorism? Congratulating SA on the way in which they seek the best for their citizens while ignoring their blatant and horrific human rights abuses? I kind of get why this happens, and no doubt JT would do something similar were he speaking in SA, but I certainly don't have to like it.

Watching Trump's speech in SA. He looks like he's falling asleep during the Saudi King's speech; he sounds like he's drugged during his speech. Congratulates everybody on the warm and long partnership between SA and the US. Talks about how wonderful America is, and about all the great things that have resulted since he took office. "We are not here to lecture. We are not here to tell people how to live, how to worship". "This summit is the beginning of the end for [terrorists] ... the beginning of peace for the middle east and all over the world". Admits that Muslims have suffered the most from terrorism. A tragedy of epic proportions. Suggests people should flock to the Middle East and mentions briefly how great Islam is. Talks about how the potential of the Middle East is held back by violence and terror, which cannot be accepted or ignored. "Every time a terrorist kills an innocent person, it's an insult to their faith. Those people do not worship god, but death." Says that the Middle East cannot wait for America to crush their problems; they have to do it themselves. Their nations have to drive out extremists and terrorists; drive them out of nation, communities, holy places, their holy land. America will give up doing what doesn't work and will change their approach. Claims US is here for peace, but announces a billion-dollar deal for arms and promises to help SA get 'the best deal' for US arms, which are the best in the world. Faces in the audience look unconvinced, comments on the side are not supportive. Trump is proud to announce a new committee created to stop terrorists from using oil to fund themselves and announces Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and SA and US have sanctioned Hezbollah leadership. Claims profound effect on terrorists. Has trouble pronouncing ethnicity. Sounds like he's short of breath, and almost slurring words. Points to Iran as major/only supporter of terrorism. Asks the world to sanction Iran. Thanks the Saudi King for this great moment in history and for the investment in US industry. Saudi King looks as if he'd like to behead someone, haha. Donald wraps it up, finally. Have to give him credit, it was a long speech and he didn't seem to be reading it.

Nobody I've spoken to has said Isreal doesn't have a right to exist. Some people feel that Isreal's location was imposed upon them and that this was another example of Western meddling without any understanding or care about what the people in the region might feel. I don't necessarily believe this, by the way, it's merely a perspective I was given. Believe me, I do have an idea.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

Not if you are a civilian trying to avoid being killed by US drones.

Perhaps Comey was lying to Trump and Trump knew it? Or maybe he wasn't lying, but Trump assumed he was? Either way, it seems pretty stupid on Trump's part to fire someone who is investigating his/his campaign's connections to Russia. If there is nothing to hide, why fire him? Even if Trump is as innocent as a new-born babe, that was just stupid. And to follow up with remarks about 'how the pressure is off' - a person convinced of their innocence doesn't feel the need to relief pressure by eliminating the investigators. Btw, six months isn't long for an investigation.

Righties typically pretend their 'side' is blameless or they claim any bad behavior on their side is irrelevant. It just doesn't work that way.

On the bus the other day I heard raised voices behind me, though not what they were saying. The voices quieted down, then became louder again - someone said "She's a minor, you can't say things like that to her". My stop was coming up, and I got up to move to the back door. I saw a girl sitting in a seat and two people next to her that I couldn't see but seemed to be involved. A guy stood facing them and was exchanging words, with one of the people sitting next to the girl. It seemed to me he ought to back off, but since my stop was coming up I figured I'd be well away in a moment. Some more words I can't hear, then suddenly the girl jumps up and kicks the guy standing up hard in the leg. He steps back, and she moves him, pounding him hard with both fists on his chest; he moves back as far as he can, but bus aisles are not that wide. Then she connects with his face and he retaliates, hitting her back. Two or three guys immediately jump on him 'for hitting a girl'; the girl moves away and looks rather smug. As I get off I see that the guy couldn't have hit her hard, there's not a mark on her face. It bothers me that nobody tried to stop the girl when she attacked this guy, but that he was held to be at fault for eventually defending himself. He certainly had other options before she attacked, but when she did he moved as far from her as he could physically and she pursued him to keep attacking. This wasn't a small girl attacking a big guy either; she was a bit taller than him and they probably weighed about the same. It bothers me that this girl has learned that it's acceptable for her to be violent, but not acceptable for a guy to defend himself from her attack. What do you think? Am I wrong here? Was the guy justified in hitting her back, or should he have let her continue to beat on him?

I don't hate you...why would understanding that your experience and what you believe means you dislike Islam and don't generally trust Muslims mean I hate you? And OMG, there you go accusing me of being Muslim as if disagreeing with you can only mean I'm Muslim. Bizarre.

Maybe, although I've been told that it has much to do with the way Isreal was established and how she's conducted herself since, not so much Jews themselves. Kind of like hating America, but having no issue with individual Americans. I've also been told that there is a long-standing feud dating from the time of Abraham. And finally that there is no issue, Jews are people of the book, like Muslims. True enough, but even so attitudes ranged between extremes of rigid intolerance and complete acceptance. Most people fell between those extremes, they maintained the status quo without really thinking about it too much. I kind of think that's approximately where Muslims are today in their own countries, but in Western countries they tend to be more advanced. I think that's too simplistic. Having faith in humanity doesn't mean a person is unaware of the failures of human beings either individually or in groups.

Yeah, that bothers me as well. I would like to know if the incidents I heard about were usual or anomalies, from an objective source, which pretty much rules out anyone on this board. Perhaps this is something the study on religious discrimination should or plans to look at.

That may be true of many or most Christians in Western Secular countries, but it's not true of all Christians. Nor can Muslims, according to their beliefs. For most of them ... the ones you don't hear about on the news ... Its up to God to judge and punish, not man. Exactly what Muslims say about the extremists in their midst. Funny how Christians can distance themselves from their evil twins, but Muslims aren't allowed to do the same. Hahaha.

This is certainly an area where some Islamic countries have it over Canada.