Mentally ill girl hanged from Crane at age 16 by Iran's "Morality Police"

I don't believe in 'morality police', so don't be scared...

 

So you are against the Mullahs in Iran then?

DD

 

No, I asked an explicit question. Your response is not an answer to that question.

And? Again this has no relevance to the question at hand.

 

And? First, this approach is akin to saying 'you used to have slavery - how dare you speak out against slavery.' It is silly. Second, these are not examples of the government executing someone for having sex with an unmarried male. It isn't on point and if it were it still wouldn't be sound argument. Now you're just getting caught up in a typical wnes spinoff.

"Hey look, someone famous!"

 

LOL ... hayes, you asked losttexan if he could give an example where somebody was publically executed for having sex.

You didn't specify the historical time frame, so I took the liberty to go back mostly to an era 100 years ago. You disputed it was irrelevant. I disagreed, for the following reasons:

1) both were executions by hanging in public (your caveman snatching woman away is thus a poor example)
2) both "crimes" have to do with the same "moral infringement" -- having sex outside marriages;
3) both "perpetrators" were at the lowest ladder of social orders in their respective society, despite age, gender, and ethnicity differences;
4) both actions are considered barbaric and cruel physical punishments that are not accepted in broader civilizations;
5) both actions (the punishments) are somehow perceived to be related to some confined cultural or religious practices that were acceptable and tolerated only in those confinements.

That said, I do agree with you on the first part in your response to losttexan.

 

wow that was a sad article. it angers me when injustice prevails.

 

I have no opinion of the nature of their government either way. It's not my country, I am not a resident, they have the right to their own laws and norms, we have no say in the matter.

Criticize their government or their laws as you wish, it doesn't really mean much. Iranians are the ones who have a stake in the matter.

 

Umm...no, smartie. I clearly said that it's legitimate to criticize. The above is just your spin, try again...

LOL! I was commenting on the lynching part, thought I would make a clarification, I certainly wasn't trying to say it was analogous to this.

Swing and a miss!

 

No, wnes - that isn't what I asked. This is what I said (the statement to which you responded):

Originally Posted by HayesStreet
Or more to the point, name one we've executed for having sex with an unmarried man.

To which you replied about lynchings - which clearly neither answers my question (it isn't a woman executed for having sex with an unmarried man) nor fits into the discussions about governments executing someone (these weren't the actions of the government but of individuals).

Cool.

 

You honestly don't have an opinion of their government, either way? That's a rather astonishing statement. You don't have a problem with reform candidates being disqualified from running for office with no reason but that they oppose the theocratic regime? The gross oppression of women? Guess tiger isn't female, lol. Geez, I could type a long list of things I have problems with regarding the government of Iran. These just popped into my head first.

Color me speechless.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Actually I originally wrote 'wnes' but since it included losttexan and others i changed it to 'this...approach.' Sorry for the confusion although i'm not sure how that's consistent with your 'it is their law' claim.

Hardly. It was my original point that wnes would say something irrelevant and derail the thread. That you picked up his point and ran with it, while subsequently clarifying that you realize they are not analogous - exactly my point - that's the sound of the thread derailing.

 

As I have explained, the gender discrepancy is not important since in both cases, the "perpetrators" were representatives of the oppressed classes that belong to the lowest societal ladders. Also, the inaction of the governments at both local and federal levels in the heydays of Lynch Law rendered them guilty of complicity.

See I am not always a haysian anagonist.

 

There are certainly some 'universal values' that most people in the world abide by. For example: murder is bad (i.e. genocide, ethnic cleansing), cannibalism is bad, rape is bad, cheating is bad, racism is bad, etc. However, those 'universal values' have undergone an evolution of sorts over the years, you certainly can't argue that everything we accept today as 'universal values' were the same values a century ago; they evolved over time, and continue to evolve.

Moreover, there is certainly such a thing as 'cultural relativity', reality dictates it. We live in a multi-cultural world, and every society has its own norms. Are you saying that we should try to somehow 'eliminate' those differences and subjugate people to secular Western values? Or should we just Christianize them? I am not sure what you're trying to say here. We do not live in a homogeneous world.

Moreover, I find it humorous that the same poster who frequently refuses to assign 'morality' to international matters (you know, wars, nuclear bombing of cities, etc.)-- indeed, someone who frequently excuses those very actions using 'technicalities' -- would suddenly become so interested in making value judgements ("If it's wrong it is wrong").

Consistency, Hayes, consistency...

We're not in disagreement here...I already said "I agree". Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

Wnes, I asked a question. You replied with something other than an answer. No amount of hemming and hawing can make it a relevant answer. It is neither a case of a woman being executed for having sex with an unmarried man nor is it a case of government execution. Guilt by association or not, it was not a government execution, it was not legislated execution. It was lynching by individuals. Your response applies to neither the letter nor the context of the passage to which you were responding.

Hmmm....antagonist might be a little strong. More like irritant, but hey no reason to mince words.

 

OK, then it was a misunderstanding, no biggie.

However, since this thread is in a sense about 'values', societal norms, and cultural relativity, our own history with racism, segregation, and outright terrorism committed against our minorities does come into play. It's not entirely unrelated to the general topic.

 

So by this thought process, we should have left Milosovic alone? I mean it was their country, their laws, should we have let the genocide continue?

This is a gray area for me, should we stick our noses in around the world or butt out.

Whichever we choose we get criticized.....should we deal with Somalia, or leave it alone? Should we deal with Iran, or leave it alone?

What do you think Tiger? Milosovic, should we have left them alone ?

DD

 

Not sure where the point of contention is in this.

Reality dictates it? I'm not sure if you mean reality dictates that there are other cultures or if you mean that we must accept all aspects of other culutres? Please clarify.

Yes, I am certainly saying we should eliminate (if possible) or at least be critical of cultural practices we consider to be wrong. I think it is humorous that so many today are afraid to stand up and say 'that is wrong.' Somewhere along the way an admirable attempt to be tolerant went awry and now somehow presumption is wholly against changing someone's 'culture' as if it were an intrinsic trump card. I never said anything about 'Christianizing' anyone so spare me the laughable strawmen - it is beneath you.

You'll have to do better than that in an explanation of how I'm inconsistent. Please point out what actions I've 'excused' from any moral assessment and what 'technicalities' you're referring to. Then I can better address your misstatement.

 

Our own history is only relevant if you agree that it is ok to say 'you had slaves so now you can't speak out against slaves' or 'you committed genocide so you can't speak out against genocide.' Otherwise what is the point of bringing it up? Unless one is to say as I pointed out earlier 'Christians never have been barbaric and Muslims are' or some such statement. If that is the point then I agree it is an on point and relevant response. But it does nothing to (and I believe we agree on this) an argument that we should be criticising this current practice as detailed in the original article.

 

Umm...no. You asked me about my opinion of the Iranian government, which has the sole authority to carry out 'the law of the land' (their laws) within its territory as a sovereign entity. Milosovic was undertaking a systematic genocide of an entire group of people, he didn't execute someone for an infraction of the law. The two situations are not analogous, DaDa. Ethnic cleansing and this incident in Iran are not the same thing.

 

I said it's relevant since this whole argument has taken the turn to a discussion of 'universal values' and cultural relativity. In that sense, it would be 'fair game' to -- for instance -- discuss how the majority of Western Europeans consider some aspects of American society 'barbaric'. It's certainly relative to the overall discussion of cultural relativity.