Iran Beats Women Over Dress Code

[BC_chick]

Same thing goes on all over the Middle-East, why single out Iran? Oh that's right, none of the others are in line for shock and awe....

Let the dehumanisation begin.

[newbie]

The whole Muslim world can go do a colelctive back-flip into an empty pool. Or stampede each other to death at the Hajj.

yippee.

-k

You are you condemning all the muslim world? A tad harsh don't you think?

[scribblet]

Same thing goes on all over the Middle-East, why single out Iran? Oh that's right, none of the others are in line for shock and awe....

Let the dehumanisation begin.

BS - so its not 'dehumanizing' for women to be beaten by authorities for not wearing the right scarf, you people who are arguing about this think its okay - shaking my head over this one

So by those lites, it is also okay for them to execute teenagers because they are homosexuals and against their societal norms.

[buffycat]

you people who are arguing about this think its okay - shaking my head over this one

So by those lites, it is also okay for them to execute teenagers because they are homosexuals and against their societal norms.

The only one saying that is you Scribblet.

I don't think any moral human would suggest for a moment that beating by police is a reasonable approach - whether it happens in Iran, Canada, the US or TimbuckF***two.

[scribblet]

No I'm not the only on saying it, I havn't seen you or others say anything against these actions.

[buffycat]

No I'm not the only on saying it, I havn't seen you or others say anything against these actions.

Ha! Perhaps you need a prescription for your glasses? Perhaps a reading primer?

NO one here has condoned the beatings - what they have pointed out is that is occurs elsewhere and continues too.

Scribblet - women haven't even had the vote for one hundred years in the West - do you have a comment for that? That how it is only recently that women in the so called enlightened west have even had rights?

Give them time, quite screwing with their countries by supporting radical movements, which in turn result in LESS rights for women - just like we see in current day Iraq.

Again - the only one here who is saying anyone condones this behaviour is YOU. Ah, but then black and white is such a nice easy way to view others' when you're just about to bomb them to the stoneage eh?

As BC Chick said: The dehumanisation begins.

[scribblet]

No I'm not the only on saying it, I havn't seen you or others say anything against these actions.

Ha! Perhaps you need a prescription for your glasses? Perhaps a reading primer?

As BC Chick said: The dehumanisation begins.

Perhaps you need to change yours, and maybe reead some of your own exhortations about personal attacks.

As for dehumanisation, they have done that to all by their ownselves, they don't need anyone's help for that.

[buffycat]

My glasses are fine Scribblet, but thanks for asking.

I was concerned perhaps that yours were a tadd too dark and you might be missing out on some rather key points here!

But, alas you are just being you!

No comment on how Western women have only recently aquired any kinds of rights eh? What about blacks? Oh it was okay to beat them not even 50 years ago! But oh, our societies are SO much more superior eh?

Bah! Go see the eye doctor.

[Argus]

No I'm not the only on saying it, I havn't seen you or others say anything against these actions.

Scribblet - women haven't even had the vote for one hundred years in the West - do you have a comment for that? That how it is only recently that women in the so called enlightened west have even had rights?

Sooo.... we can't expect much from the brown people, is that what you're saying? They're too primitive?

That sure SEEMS to be what you're saying.

[M.Dancer]

well woman can vote in our society and have had the vote for the last 90 years so yes, we are superior. Unless of course you feel that there is no difference between a society that has the vote and one that doesn't. In which case, please feel free to give up your rights.......

[BC_chick]

BS - so its not 'dehumanizing' for women to be beaten by authorities for not wearing the right scarf, you people who are arguing about this think its okay - shaking my head over this one

You completely missed the point, that was not what I was saying at all. Try again.

[JerrySeinfeld]

No I'm not the only on saying it, I havn't seen you or others say anything against these actions.

Ha! Perhaps you need a prescription for your glasses? Perhaps a reading primer?

NO one here has condoned the beatings - what they have pointed out is that is occurs elsewhere and continues too.

Scribblet - women haven't even had the vote for one hundred years in the West - do you have a comment for that? That how it is only recently that women in the so called enlightened west have even had rights?

Give them time, quite screwing with their countries by supporting radical movements, which in turn result in LESS rights for women - just like we see in current day Iraq.

Again - the only one here who is saying anyone condones this behaviour is YOU. Ah, but then black and white is such a nice easy way to view others' when you're just about to bomb them to the stoneage eh?

As BC Chick said: The dehumanisation begins.

Let me just do the math here for a second. Women in the "west" were allowed to wear dresses and wakl around without scarfs on their heads dating...oh back to the 1200's or so. And now they're voting. So in your world, we should wait until 2800 before we have a right to complain about the treatment of these women, just in the interest of being "fair" to the mid-east?

You're on glue.

[JerrySeinfeld]

There is the one key possiblity (probability?) that most moral relativists seems to completely ignore.

The multi-culti trance that you're in always assumes that if we just tolerate eachother, eventually everyone will get along and the whole world will become like Canada is.

Here is what you totally ignore or don't realize: you are absolutely right. WOMEN HAVE ONLY HAD THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THIS WORLD FOR ABOUT 90 YEARS OR SO. THAT'S IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION.

So WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IS WHAT WILL BE PERMANENT?

Did you ever consider that this brief glimpse 20th century we know as the "american century" is the weak and their (Mid-Easts treatment of women) is the strong?

You assume that eventually, if we "give them time" they will come around to how we do things. But look around. What is happening in your own back yard? Are there FEWER women in Hijabs and Burqa's walking around? OR ARE THERE ALOT MORE????

Think about it. WHO IS THE STRONGER SOCIETY? THE ONE WHO HAS LOTS OF BABIES, BELIEVES THEY ARE SUPERIOR AND WILLING TO DIE FOR THEIR RELIGION? OR THE "WEST"? THE SOCIETY WITH AN ANEMIC BIRTHRATE, A SELF-HATRED FOR IT'S BELIEFS AND FIGHTS, AND THE WILL TO LOSE A WINABLE WAR?

But I digress. The main point here is: perhaps the "cultural revolution" isn't in FAVOR of women's rights. Perhaps we are the new colonies for the OTHER cultural revolution: the one that TAKES AWAY those rights.

[BC_chick]

Jerry, nobody is excusing anything. Two points are being brought up here:

1) The fact that many "friendly" nations mistreat women just as badly as Iran (many of whom are even worse - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan for example) demonstrates that other factors are at work in the constant negative portrayal of Iran.

The implication here is that there is an impending war with Iran, and after the fiasco known as Iraq, the spin-doctors are busy singling out Iran for its mistreatment of women in order to build support for the moment when the killing fields are unleashed again.

Furthermore, many non-Muslim countries also severely mistreat women, why don't I ever see threads being started for the women being raped in Africa, the women being burned in India or the female babies that are being killed in the Far-East?

That's right, we don't need to dehumanise them in order to justify killing them.

2) For a society which only granted women and minorities human rights within the last fifty years, one where beating your wife was perfectly legal until quite recently, you may have the moral high-ground in making the changes somewhat quicker, but that is the only argument you have - that you are fifty years ahead, not that you're completely innocent.

Nonetheless, given the long history of western civilization, fifty years is really not much to be proud of.

[M.Dancer]

Nonetheless, given the long history of western civilization, fifty years is really not much to be proud of.

90 years.....but it was because women sucked at math that they didn't get the vote.....

[BC_chick]

Nonetheless, given the long history of western civilization, fifty years is really not much to be proud of.

90 years.....but it was because women sucked at math that they didn't get the vote.....

I was not talking about voting. Re-read my post.

For a society which only granted women and minorities human rights within the last fifty years, one where beating your wife was perfectly legal until quite recently, you may have the moral high-ground in making the changes somewhat quicker, but that is the only argument you have - that you are fifty years ahead, not that you're completely innocent.

Besides, I'm simply clarifying point 2, my argument from the beginning has been point 1.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry, nobody is excusing anything. Two points are being brought up here:

1) The fact that many "friendly" nations mistreat women just as badly as Iran (many of whom are even worse - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan for example) demonstrates that other factors are at work in the constant negative portrayal of Iran.

The implication here is that there is an impending war with Iran, and after the fiasco known as Iraq, the spin-doctors are busy singling out Iran for its mistreatment of women in order to build support for the moment when the killing fields are unleashed again.

Furthermore, many non-Muslim countries also severely mistreat women, why don't I ever see threads being started for the women being raped in Africa, the women being burned in India or the female babies that are being killed in the Far-East?

That's right, we don't need to dehumanise them in order to justify killing them.

2) For a society which only granted women and minorities human rights within the last fifty years, one where beating your wife was perfectly legal until quite recently, you may have the moral high-ground in making the changes somewhat quicker, but that is the only argument you have - that you are fifty years ahead, not that you're completely innocent.

Nonetheless, given the long history of western civilization, fifty years is really not much to be proud of.

1. Who do you think we're fighting in Iraq right now? Take a wild guess.

2. Read my post above yours which addresses this quite thoroughly.

3. It always reveals the lack of genuinity in a lefty's desire to make the world better when you see a lefty marching down the street in favor of women's rights in Vancouver, but he's the first to stand up and justify the abuse of women if it means he can make points in a argument relating in some way shape or form to the evil GW BUSH!!! Get some consistency people. This is a thread about the abuse of women. It's only the lefty irrational hatred of GW BUSH that has bastardized this serious topic into a pseudo poll on GW BUSH...yet again!!

[BC_chick]

Get some consistency people.

Look who's talking. When's the last time I saw a "compassionate conservative" care for women in the world who don't live in countries you're itching to bomb.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Get some consistency people.

Look who's talking. When's the last time I saw a "compassionate conservative" care for women in the world who don't live in countries you're itching to bomb.

Um - I wouldn't exactly call a left winger who justifies the beating of women in the interests of scoring points against GW Bush "compassionate".

So when you're done making vast generalizations completely unrelated to the topic at hand, let's talk about the women in Iran getting beaten up for the clothes they wear.

[Argus]

Nonetheless, given the long history of western civilization, fifty years is really not much to be proud of.

90 years.....but it was because women sucked at math that they didn't get the vote.....

I was not talking about voting. Re-read my post.

For a society which only granted women and minorities human rights within the last fifty years, one where beating your wife was perfectly legal until quite recently, you may have the moral high-ground in making the changes somewhat quicker, but that is the only argument you have - that you are fifty years ahead, not that you're completely innocent.

There is no evidence that the Muslim world is travelling along the same road we took. In fact, there is evidence they are going backwards. Women were, in some cases, and in some ways, treated better fifty years ago in the Muslim world than they are today.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nonetheless, given the long history of western civilization, fifty years is really not much to be proud of.

90 years.....but it was because women sucked at math that they didn't get the vote.....

I was not talking about voting. Re-read my post.

For a society which only granted women and minorities human rights within the last fifty years, one where beating your wife was perfectly legal until quite recently, you may have the moral high-ground in making the changes somewhat quicker, but that is the only argument you have - that you are fifty years ahead, not that you're completely innocent.

There is no evidence that the Muslim world is travelling along the same road we took. In fact, there is evidence they are going backwards. Women were, in some cases, and in some ways, treated better fifty years ago in the Muslim world than they are today.

Exactly - and moreso there is increasing evidence that - if anything, it is us importing their values, not viseversa...

[scribblet]

My glasses are fine Scribblet, but thanks for asking.

I was concerned perhaps that yours were a tadd too dark and you might be missing out on some rather key points here!

But, alas you are just being you!

Bah! Go see the eye doctor.

Bah - more personal attacks but then, you are just being you with double standards and then some !!

How does that go now? oh yea " Now, can you debate in a nice way? Without all the dripping oils of sarcasm and rude remarks? I doubt somehow. Can you be brief and not contradict yourself"

[scribblet]

There is no evidence that the Muslim world is travelling along the same road we took. In fact, there is evidence they are going backwards. Women were, in some cases, and in some ways, treated better fifty years ago in the Muslim world than they are today.

Good points. Women had a much more tolerable status at the beginning of Islam, apparantly Mohammed in the beginning promoted women as almost equal partners to men - but that changed and they are still going backwards, now they are considered inferior.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Get some consistency people.

Look who's talking. When's the last time I saw a "compassionate conservative" care for women in the world who don't live in countries you're itching to bomb.

Um - I wouldn't exactly call a left winger who justifies the beating of women in the interests of scoring points against GW Bush "compassionate".

So when you're done making vast generalizations completely unrelated to the topic at hand, let's talk about the women in Iran getting beaten up for the clothes they wear.

Evidently these people think its acceptable and cannot seem to cough up the right words to condemn these accusations. In fact their protestations against old western practices rather than condemning todays Iranian excesses are nothing but a putrid excrescence of vomit.

[BC_chick]

Um - I wouldn't exactly call a left winger who justifies the beating of women in the interests of scoring points against GW Bush "compassionate".

I see, so in your reality, questioning your motive in singling out one nation is the equivalent of excusing or justifying the actions of that nation - is that what you're saying? LOL

You really need to ask questions if you're having difficulty comprehending something instead of putting words in my mouth.