Imposing our beliefs

[SmaSheD_CoW]

A coupla weeks ago somebody asked me to sign a petition. It was about a woman in an arab country (I think it might have been Saudi Arabia). She had committed adultery, been prosecuted for it, and had been sentenced to death by stoning in accordance with local customs/laws. This petition was one to have her sentence repealed. I signed the petition, not necessarily because I agreed with it, but because the lass who asked for my signature had rather large jubblies.Imp

Later, it got me thinking. Do we have a right to impose our beliefs and moral standards on a society with a different set of beliefs and standards?

Undoubtably, within our Western society and culture, the stoning of a woman who had committed adultery would be seen as an abbhorent. Indeed, in our society, even the mere act of adultery is not generally seen as being a crime, and the possibility of somebody being legally prosecuted for it would be raise objections from the majority of people.

Looking at the relevant arab society, however, I make the assumption that the act of adultery is considered to be morally wrong, and capital punishment would not necessarily be considered an unjust penalty.

In my opinion, it is wrong for us to attempt to force our western values onto other cultures. Although we may consider this particular woman's punishment to be injust, we have no right to force our view upon a society whose beliefs are vastly different to ours. Protesters such as the organisers of this petition were wrong to assume that just because they felt it was wrong, the stoning should not be allowed to go ahead.

I agree (with the majority of Australians) that the stoning of a woman convicted of adultery is abbhorent by our standards.. However I do not believe that gives us a right to intervene in the affairs of a different country whose culture permits such a punishment.

Your thoughts?

[Chocoholic]

I think it’s a human rights issue. Who has the right to decide if you live or die. If this woman made a decision to live in a country that killed people for committing adultery then I wouldn’t have a problem. However she was probably born there and had religion pushed on her from a young age. I know I am made assumptions here but like most human rights issues not all the information is well known. How do you know this women wasn’t suicidal and wanted 5 minutes of fame before she died?

I don’t know all the information so I don’t really have any thoughts. Except killing people is bad.

[and3w]

Originally posted by Chocoholic
I think it’s a human rights issue. Who has the right to decide if you live or die.

I agree.
The Saudi ruling class are a bunch of corrupt feudal king's & Prince's, most of whom were educated in western private schools and imbibed western values. The only reason they keep their country as it is is because it allows them to perpetuate their corrupt rule.
They certainly do NOT obey their religious laws when in the UK (plenty of evidence of them getting pissed and stoned, heavy gambling, call girl heaven etc) and, as such, should not be allowed to impose this type of punishment upon the ordainary people of their country.
I personally think they are far worse than the poor Iraquis. So they can sod off with 'their' inhumane laws until they are willing to live within them themselves.
:mad:
IMHO;)

[berserk]

Do we have a right to impose our beliefs and moral standards on a society with a different set of beliefs and standards?

I think it’s a human rights issue. Who has the right to decide if you live or die.

Does everyone have a minimum standard of human rights that they can expect to enjoy? If so what are these rights? (besides the right to life?)

Where does universal values end & where does cultural/moral relativism start.

[hazza]

religions have been imposed onto others for thousands of years.. re: crusades.


religions should be kb'ed from #the-world.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Chocoholic
I think it’s a human rights issue. Who has the right to decide if you live or die.

Who has the right to decide whether I should be allowed to kill someone or not? Who has the right to detain me against my will because of my actions? Who has the right to tell me if what I'm doing is "right" or "wrong", and thus impose their belief system on me?

By the justification of "rights" (and who's allowed to impose them), you may as well do away with laws completely. Whether someone is executed or incarcerated is a matter of degree, not principle.

[Maestro]

I'm with SC on this - there isn't anything that necessarily makes our charter of human rights universal. Almost exclusively, metanarratives like religion pretend that they are the beginning and end of truth, and that the words contained in the texts are inherently true by right of divination or whatever.

As to the hypocrisy and3w mentioned, I don't know if that's relevant to the discussion. If the issue is whether or not we, as members of liberal western cultures, should be pressing our beliefs onto other cultures, then whatever they do or how they choose to do it isn't important. It's about whether we have the right to press our ideas onto others.

The arguments around this topic are frought with a whole series of logical paradoxes that make your head hurt to think about them; at the end of the day a pragmatist will just point out that it's about whoever can justify it better. Yet arguments about truths that we can't conclusively (empirically) prove are doomed to be constantly redefined, so even the pragmatic view is a logical black hole.

Unfortunately for the people who come up with these kinds of petitions, I don't know that the people carrying out this kind of thing will give a flying shit about petitions; neither is George Bush likely to invade a country for the sake of one adulterous woman. If they want to save a life, they're better off becoming a blood donor and leaving all their money to charity.

[ersatz]

You mean memetic transfer? In the very end it probably won't matter whether or not whatever the majority of people believe at the time is 'better' or 'worse' than what we anyone believes right now. For all they'll be culling humans for a brighter future.

All these petition people can hope for is to spread or increase the awareness of their ideas among the populace. Some appear to be more sympathetic to my general beliefs than others; even so, after a while the old ways of persuasion become less effective so they have to try harder. I kind of evolution with no endpoint, perhaps.

[Jaz]

It seems to me that imposing our cultural beliefs onto a nation on the other side of the globe is rather a hard and expensive task compared to say...minding your own fucking business and lobbying for a cycleway in your own town.

There is only 1 international human rights issue that I care about, and that is the bringing down of the great firewall of China. Every internet user should have the right to view pr0n.

[Maestro]

Originally posted by ersatz
You mean memetic transfer? In the very end it probably won't matter whether or not whatever the majority of people believe at the time is 'better' or 'worse' than what we anyone believes right now. For all they'll be culling humans for a brighter future.

All these petition people can hope for is to spread or increase the awareness of their ideas among the populace. Some appear to be more sympathetic to my general beliefs than others; even so, after a while the old ways of persuasion become less effective so they have to try harder. I kind of evolution with no endpoint, perhaps. Cultural meme's are a bit of a sticking point with me, because it tends to imply that all cultural artifacts have equal voices. The process suggested by Richard Dawkins' memes (as you've rightly noted) is a kind of evoltion where cultures seek to further themselves and, all other things being equal, the best and fittest "segments" (memes) of culture survive.

For me, that can't work - I've read too much Foucault to believe in a rosy world of equal cultural voices. At the level of countries, the voice of the Government has far more influence in what gets adopted than, say, an art critic, although they both play a vital part in shaping cultural views. Likewise, at the international level, western capitalist countries have more cultural influence for a whole host of reasons (the most important of which would seem to be economic).

Having said all that, I quite like your point that all they can hope to do is increase awareness. The sticking point, of course, is that nations are not particularly receptive to outside influence when it's couched in terms of "You are either with us or against us".





Edited to improve grammar

[Bostonmess]

I'm thinking more of that woman in Nigeria or somewhere like that. She's been allowed a stay of execution until her bairn has been weened then they bury her up to the neck and throw bricks at her head. Gee we all wish we had that job don't we?.

I think the thing with it is; well here I looked it up:

http://www.angelfire.com/stars/dorina/stoning.html

Yes I think we do have the right to impose our beliefs on other cultures. So long as we don't do it violently. That's what the UN is about isn't it? Sometimes? They're always trying to stop torture, there's not much cannabilism although it has been mentioned on the net recently.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-689516,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$R2NQZDEMZKPBXQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2003/06/08/wkor08.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/08/ixworld.html

I think some of the Uk troops have gone over to try and calm it down.

I don't know what difference signing a partition will make, but I'd sign it whether she had nice jubblies or not.

Do we have the right to become involved in something that goes on in another family?

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
Yes I think we do have the right to impose our beliefs on other cultures. So long as we don't do it violently.

So do other cultures have the right to impose their beliefs on our culture, or is it just a one way street? Is it OK if we just make them like us, but not vice versa?

[utopian]

Imposing your beliefs on other significantly different cultures is the wrong thing to do. I would guess that in other countries, they believe that women shouldn't vote. How would you like it if a bunch of Muslims came and installed Shari'ah in your country and took away women's rights.

You can't just go and tell other people to live the same way you do. Cultural diversity is something that makes us more human, whether you like it or not. While I am morally opposed to the idea of stoning a woman to death, it is not the culture we have been raised in and therefore we will not ever 100% understand it.

[angel_b]

I'm with Chocoholic on this one. It's a *human* rights violation and should be stopped.

Anyone want to argue the rights and wrongs of female circumcision? :mad:

[scathing]

Originally posted by angel_b
Anyone want to argue the rights and wrongs of female circumcision?

Sure, but since you brought it up first I'd like to know your stance and justification for it.

[Movius]

There's respecting other peoples beliefs and then there's cases like this. If you can see a logical reason to stone people to death for engaging in activities with another consenting person you have something defective in numerous regions of the brain.

[still life]

As an aside, the inalienable rights that all humans have from birth as stated by the United Nations, are here:


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[scathing]

Originally posted by Movius
There's respecting other peoples beliefs and then there's cases like this. If you can see a logical reason to stone people to death for engaging in activities with another consenting person you have something defective in numerous regions of the brain.

We're not talking about logical reasoning here - we're talking about people's beliefs.

There's no logical reason to not eat pork products (or any meat for that matter). There's no logical reason why people can't work 6 day weeks, for lower pay. There's no logical reason why people can't walk naked through the streets.

There's also no logical reason as to why consent justifies anything. People are incarcerated, or required an organisation money, against their consent every day in this (and other Western) countries, because they did things the society didn't particuarly like.

The whole concept of fining someone (ie you've done something wrong, so either you give us some money or we throw you in jail) is, if you really think about it, pretty corrupt. The only difference between that punishment and blackmail is that fining is state-sanctioned.....but, oh wait, stoning someone for crimes is state-sanctioned too!

So, in the end, the only difference is that your Western beliefs disagree with theirs. Your beliefs aren't any "better" (as arbitrary a concept as that is) - they're just yours.

[Up_All_Night]

this might have been said

i look at it this way, is a man stoned to death for adultery in that country???

so why should a woman and if they don't have a belief in men and woman being equal then I don't care that is wrong. there shouldn't be the double standards

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by scathing
So do other cultures have the right to impose their beliefs on our culture, or is it just a one way street? Is it OK if we just make them like us, but not vice versa?

I think they do already. I might be wrong it just depends what you mean by "imposing beliefs."

I can't go to a muslim takeaway and order a pork based food even though eating it is legal here. Of course it doen't bother me, I'm not gonna start a campaign for sausage sandwiches at the local curry house.

Ninety percent, more? of people on the planet would think that this punishment is not only barbaric but totally unjustified. We shouldn't be a cop out just because it's a different culture.

Should we keep silent just because it's the culture of the West to bomb the crap out of other countries? Not in my eyes. It's all about right and wrong, you've got an opinion don't be scared to express it.

If I offend: Fuck 'em. They offend me by having these load of bollox beliefs. If they have that right then I have mine.

Take each situation as it comes and make a decision.

Originally posted by Movius
There's respecting other peoples beliefs and then there's cases like this. If you can see a logical reason to stone people to death for engaging in activities with another consenting person you have something defective in numerous regions of the brain.

Oh, and that that he said.

[SmaSheD_CoW]

Chocaholic, andr3w, angel_b (and a few others) - you brought up the "human rights" issue - "Who has the right to decide if you live or die."

In the US, if a person commits 1st degree murder, one of the possible punishments is the death penalty. The law feels that the crime of murder is serious enough to warrant the killing of the perpetrator.

In this particular arab country, it is evident they consider adultery to be just as sinful as murder, and deserving of the same punishment.

Where is the difference? What gives the US the right to execute criminals, yet refuses the grant an arab nation the same right for a crime they consider to be equally serious?



Boston - you brought up the example of how a muslim takeaway store might refuse to serve pork, but I would dispute that such a situation could be considered a case of them attempting to impose their beliefs on us. There is an important distinction between practicing beliefs, and attempting to impose those beliefs on others. I would argue that refusing to serve pork would be considered practicing beliefs, whereas petitioning to make the sale of pork illegal everywhere would be imposing beliefs. I fail to see how it could be viewed that arab societies attempt to impose their beliefs on us.

I ask you, how would you feel if an arab society attempted to ban the sale of pork in the US? Would you accept that they have the right to impose their beliefs on you? If not, why is it different if you attempt to impose your beliefs on them?



Whoever brought up the Charter of Human Rights and the UN - Is the UN not a Western-based organisation? Yes, arab countries do have delegates, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that they have much of a say in matters in comparison to the Western powers - US, France, etc. A Charter of rights drawn up by a group of Western nations is naturally going to be biased towards protecting the rights which Westerners believe are essential - not necessarily those which an arab society believes in.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Up_All_Night
so why should a woman and if they don't have a belief in men and woman being equal then I don't care that is wrong.

Why is it wrong?

I'm getting a whole bunch of assertions of people's beliefs, that they are masquerading as objective "rights", with no justification.

Explain, empirically (not just "Because society says so" or "it just is"), why this is the case. Until then, that's just your opinion and its as valid as someone who says that men and women aren't equal.

[scathing]

Originally posted by still life
As an aside, the inalienable rights that all humans have from birth as stated by the United Nations

Too bad some Western nations *cough* US *cough* only follow them when it suits their purposes.

"Inalienable rights" is only possible if you have people who choose to enforce those beliefs. There's nothing that can objectively justify them.

In some nations, its an inalienable right for a man to beat down his disobedient wife. Its just that its not internationally popular.

"Inalienable rights", as a concept, belong in the same genre as "Once upon a time" or "happily ever after". If you believe it to be anything but, then follow Me and my Word, and God will make sure you're financially secure for life (http://www.hillsong.com.au/).

Do you want to be saved™?

[Felix]

Just thought I should mention a couple of things:

1. I think that it's reasonable to suggest that a society which treats one set of members as better than another set of members purely because of things such as sex (or race, etc) is unjustifiable and needs to be modified; by outside pressure if need be. I'm not saying that our society has completely eradicated such things, and that our society is what all others should be. Far from it. I'm simply saying that I think that if any group of human beings is being oppressed then by others then that is immoral. Anyone think that there is a argument to be made for oppression?

2. The Saudi courts are FUCKED!! If memory serves correctly, a conviction of rape requires no less than four male witnesses to the event, who are not related to the victim. If a woman can't produce the four witnesses, but does admit to being raped then it generally defaults to adultery. Which gets her killed. That seems like a good reason to oppose the system, regardless of whether it's morally right or wrong to kill adultorers, it should be confirmed that they are adulterers, which the Saudi courts can't do effectively.

[flounder]

This thread has it in a nutshell.
People who have certain beliefs have them.
Equally people who have differing beliefs also have them.
All the posters on this thread have their own beliefs.Whether they were imposing them on others or not it made the differences between them quite stark. If 10 or so people can argue eloquently in an informed way and still we are left with our own beliefs.ie nothings changed. The only answer is a generic set of values applicable (and acceptable) to every citizen on the planet. Who is going to organise that?.
Not me I am busy this weekend:(

sorry, I try to keep things simple so I can understand them.:(

[rickbitch]

At the risk of going off topic, and getting a few people up in arms, I propose this to you all: Who are we (the human race) to decide what is right and wrong?

*Perhaps it is right to keep woman as slaves in the kitchen, and arse-rammed by every guy in the street for fun. But most of the human race don't like it, so we define it as wrong. Who do we think we are to decide this?


The simple fact is, Might is Right! Whoever has the most power imposes morals, and nothing will ever change it.



*note: not actual views of author.

[Bostonmess]

It is that simple. The only thing about is is the timescale. It might take hundreds of years, but SFW, I'm not busy, I get weekends off too.

I wouldn't mind Muslims trying to impose a ban on selling pork in supermarkets because it wouldn't work. I wouldn't mind 'em trying though as I believe they have a right to their opinion, so long as it doesn't hurt others.

If they came over here and started giving it "Stop polluting the place so much." Hell, I'd stand beside 'em, because I would share their belief.

This is how I see it, don't give me that culture bollox, it's my culture to speak when I see something as wrong, everyone else should do too. Of course if you agree with it you should say so too. No one should be scared to formulate an opinion on something because it might be decided it's racist.

Listen to other people's opinions too, then you'll get an idea of where you stand with your own.

I think it's fucking stupid throwing rocks at a woman's head until she's dead because she allegedly had a child to some dude out of wedlock. Why don't they throw rocks at his cock? Makes more sense to me.

Now, who can tell me which motherfucker said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."? Pretty fucking wise words if you ask me.

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by rickbishop

The simple fact is, Might is Right! Whoever has the most power imposes morals, and nothing will ever change it.


Someone should sell her an AK then and let her get all jihad on the elder's asses.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
I wouldn't mind Muslims trying to impose a ban on selling pork in supermarkets because it wouldn't work. I wouldn't mind 'em trying though as I believe they have a right to their opinion, so long as it doesn't hurt others.

The discussion is not whether they try. The discussion is what happens if they succeed in pushing their beliefs onto you, without considering yours. Try looking at it from the other side; that's the point of this thread.

Lets say, from your example, you couldn't buy any non-halal meat anywhere. You're living in a shitty backwater, and you need Muslim trade / aid to survive, and avoid getting the shit bombed out of you after being accused of supporting immoral values.

You've grown up all your life eating bacon sarnies for breakfast - one day you're accused of being a sinner because of it. Is that OK? Is that right?

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
I think it's fucking stupid throwing rocks at a woman's head until she's dead because she allegedly had a child to some dude out of wedlock. Why don't they throw rocks at his cock? Makes more sense to me.

And therein lies the flaw in your assertions. You "think". It makes more sense "to you". Just because you "think" something doesn't make it right. I like to think that I'm a demon in the sack - whereas in reality I'm a dud root. People used to "think" slavery was OK - in some nations they probably still do. People "think" that racial superiority is fact, not bigotry.

I'm sure that the Nazi party and the KKK weren't pushing their assertions as one big joke. Either that, or gassing a shitload of Jews / hanging African Americans was just the performance artist in those organisations making a big punchline.

If something is "right", then it shouldn't matter what you think. Unfortunately, when it comes to beliefs, its the only thing you can do.

[Bostonmess]

There's little sins and there's big sins, this is pretty fucking obvious to me. I don't know about anybody else. Eating bacon sarnies = little sin. Bashing some adultrous womans head in with a rock = big sin. Just in case your wondering: adultery = big sin IMO.

I'm not that big a pork fan either. :)

I see it like this. Something's are so obviously wrong that they shouldn't really be a need to be discussed. It's like the cannibals move in next door and your kid goes missing, "Ahhh leave 'em alone, it's their culture."

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
Now, who can tell me which motherfucker said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."? Pretty fucking wise words if you ask me.

"Let me tell you about another, so-called, 'wicked' guy. He had long hair, and wild ideas, and he didn't always do what other people thought was right. And that man's name was.......I forget. But the point is........I forget that too."

Touche. So, by accusing another society of doing things that are abhorrent and attempting to make them stop, aren't you "casting stones" at their beliefs?

The difference is, of course, the Person you're quoting was born (and lived) without sin. So He is allowed to throw whatever He wants and whoever he wants (except for Dad, the Spirit, and mum of course).

If you agree with His assertions and try to live by them, then you need to go make yourself a nice cup of STFU (ask Spingo, he'll help you out) since you're in no position to go around throwing any accusations.

Otherwise you can (as is the main assertion of SC's) live in hypocrisy. Its all the rage these days - its even trendier than being socially bisexual. That's so 1997, after all.

[Whiskers]

Some people are assuming that all cultural groups are homogenous. That is patently not the case. All muslims, do not all want the same things. Nor do they all believe the same things.
I would go so far as to say that it is unfair to reduce someone to one facet of their identity i.e their religious beliefs.

There is no right or wrong. Everything is contextual. It all comes down to a pretty tricky mix of your emotional ties to certain beliefs and your ability to justify why you have those beliefs.

Adultery used to be a punishable offence in Western countires. But now it is no longer justifiable.

People used to believe that the earth was flat.

Abortion used to be illegal. (And in some places still is)

In a few states in America sodomy is a crime.

Beliefs change. I don't know how, and if anyone could pin down the exact process for this I would be astounded.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
There's little sins and there's big sins, this is pretty fucking obvious to me. I don't know about anybody else. Eating bacon sarnies = little sin. Bashing some adultrous womans head in with a rock = big sin. Just in case your wondering: adultery = big sin IMO.

I won't bother pointing out (again) how flawed IMO is in the concepts of right and wrong.

So little sins are OK then, right? But big ones aren't. You've got a great morality system. Yes I committed a sin, but its a little one so even though its wrong its still right.

So its OK if I commit crimes against God, just as long as in your opinion, they're little sins. The margerine of sins. The Diet Coke of sins. I'll be sure to mention that if I ever go to Confession again.

Priest: "Tell me about your sins."

Me: "I don't have any. I told Bostonmess about some things that were troubling me, and he said they were little so its OK."

Priest: "Can you introduce me to this person? The only person who decides what qualifies as sin is God, since a sin is a crime against God, so that must make Bostonmess the Almighty."

Me: "Wow! God's talked to me. And I'm not wearing a straitjacket or trying to get everyone to give me all their money!"


Just to pre-empt an obvious reply, we're not talking about degrees of "right" and "wrong". The thread is talking about whether something is right or wrong, whether it be little or big in either case.

[Bostonmess]

All I'm doing is expressing my beliefs that their beliefs are barbaric and the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I suppose you would be happier if I just sat here and said "It's their culture, we shouldn't express a view" ?

Ask me another culture related question and get another honest anwer.

I still think worshipping rocks is stupid too. SFW?

[robotoverflow]

I don't at all approve of that kind punishment and no-one should, but that doesn't mean that we should start a crusade against a society that lets it happen.

[Bostonmess]

Well Scathing, then we are talking about two different things. It seems that you're not happy judging each situation on the circumstances. I am.

I never said that little sins were ok, I said there was a difference between eating a bacon sarnie and throwing rocks a womans head until she was dead. Like a fucking huge difference. But of course that's only my opinion.

To move into another place is to impose your culture on it?

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by Peregrine
I don't at all approve of that kind punishment and no-one should, but that doesn't mean that we should start a crusade against a society that lets it happen.

I'm not talking about a crusade, all I'm yapping on about is expressing your opinion, which you just have done. I'm not saying: Go in there and blast the crap out of everything. I'm just saying if you think it's wrong don't be scared to stand up and voice your opinion. If there's enough voices maybe one day something will change.

[Movius]

God is not real, people are.

In many cases killing people because an imaginary being told you to is considered a sign of serious psychosis.

[and3w]

Originally posted by scathing
I won't bother pointing out (again) how flawed IMO is in the concepts of right and wrong.


Just to pre-empt an obvious reply, we're not talking about degrees of "right" and "wrong". The thread is talking about whether something is right or wrong, whether it be little or big in either case.

I thought this extreme view of cultural relativism had gone out the window many years ago.

FFS there ARE certain (very few) things that ARE right or wrong. The rest are just beliefs. It IS wrong to kill someone (unless it is at their express request) and that is just that. If we don't believe that then this world is even more fucked than I thought.
I am NOT saying one should never kill another, I'm just saying it is wrong to do it (and I don't care if it is me, or the state doing it, it's wrong).
So, if someone killed my kid, I would kill them BUT I'd expect to be punished for it. I don't want the state to do it in my name. I think execution is barbaric and wrong full stop.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
All I'm doing is expressing my beliefs that their beliefs are barbaric and the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I suppose you would be happier if I just sat here and said "It's their culture, we shouldn't express a view"?

Do you hear me telling you not to express your beliefs? No. I'm not the one telling people to be free from anywrongdoing before throwing accusations at others.

I would be happier if more people thought outside their own perceptions; actually think about what they say and do.


The sentiments I've expressed, I don't particularly like. I'd like to believe there's an empircal right and wrong, that we should all adhere to.

However, I can't argue with the validity of my assertions. I can't deny that there's no objective yardstick for right and wrong. I accept that the concept of right and wrong is just bullshit, a delusion that people propagate to maintain some semblance of social harmony.

I live by a moral code. Everyone does. When it boils down to it, its because we choose to. We might fear the consequences of not doing so, but there's nothing physically stopping us from doing immoral things.

[flounder]

There will be no winners in this thread, this I my belief.
I am going to get stoned because I have a choice.She hasn't.
I predict that the verbal fisticuffs will continue.
I hope I am wrong.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
I never said that little sins were ok, I said there was a difference between eating a bacon sarnie and throwing rocks a womans head until she was dead. Like a fucking huge difference. But of course that's only my opinion.

Yes, there is a difference. One involves injestion, the other involves creating a projectile. I agree that there's a huge difference.

However, whether performing these actions is right or wrong depends on where you come from. In some countries, one is OK and the other isn't. In another country, the opposite is true.

The only reason, in your opinion, that you believe in the rightness of one situation is because of your upbringing. What makes your opinion more valid than people from the other country?

[utopian]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
it's my culture to speak when I see something as wrong, everyone else should do too.
Stop trying to impose your beliefs on me. Whether or not you realise it, what you said there is a case of saying that other peope should be just like you. You are trying to impose your beliefs on others by saying that they should question everything. Some people are happy with how things are for them.

Just because some of my friends believe in god and I don't, that doesn't give me the right to go around trying to disprove what they believe in. I'm pretty sure the UK has freedom of religion as well as its own set of laws. So pull your finger out and stop saying "I believe that people shouldn't force their beliefs on to others. I think you should all think this way as well."

Originally posted by Bostonmess
I see it like this. Something's are so obviously wrong that they shouldn't really be a need to be discussed. It's like the cannibals move in next door and your kid goes missing, "Ahhh leave 'em alone, it's their culture."
Oh, I didn't realise that it was your mother being stoned to death. This woman is in a foreign country with its own set of laws. It's not up to you or me to decide what is "right" and "wrong" in another culture. Even if you don't agree with it, it doesn't make it wrong or right.

There are lots of different cultures in the world, and if there was no diversity there would be no one to make fun of.

[Whiskers]

So its wrong to kill someone unless it is at their express request?
According to whom? You've shot yourself in the foot.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
Well Scathing, then we are talking about two different things. It seems that you're not happy judging each situation on the circumstances. I am.

Actually, judging the morality of a situation on circumstance does your assertions little good.

We're talking about right and wrong, or so I thought. The principles of right and wrong shouldn't depend on circumstance, by definition. Either something's right or it isn't.

In those fundamental Muslim countries, its illegal to throw stones at people's heads. However, if the circumstance of this stone casting is that the target is a female who got knocked up, then in their opinion its judged to be OK.

Thus, if you want to bring circumstances into it, stoning as a punishment is morally valid.

[Bostonmess]

You told me to have a nice cup?

Quoting Christ was in direct relation to this story of the woman getting her head bashed in by rocks.The people who throw the stones won't be pure either. I'm not fucking pure, almost maybe :)

There is such a thing as right and wrong, you must know this? Everyone does. Sure sometimes things get a bit sketchy I'll agree with you there, but sometimes it's so obvious.

A guy breaks into an old biddy's house and tortures her to death and steals all her money. No matter what culture you're in, it's wrong. Not that I know of any cultures that allow this.

A guy rapes a young child; it's obviously wrong.

A woman gets buried up to her neck and then stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock. It's wrong.

[scathing]

Originally posted by and3w
FFS there ARE certain (very few) things that ARE right or wrong. The rest are just beliefs. It IS wrong to kill someone (unless it is at their express request) and that is just that. If we don't believe that then this world is even more fucked than I thought.

I asked someone else to justify an assertion on what they believed to be wrong. "That is just that" is not a reason - its just a cop-out for people who believe something but can't come up with a reason why. Its just a different way of saying, "Because I said so".

However, you do contradict yourself by saying:

"there are certain things that are right or wrong. The rest are just beliefs" and then

"if you don't believe that its wrong"

So, by your own admission, murder being wrong is just a belief.

However, ignoring that, why is it wrong?


Before you get sidetracked into thinking I'm OK with murder, rather than answering my question, I don't think its right either. However, I don't like it because I'm prejudiced against murder. My prejudice could be right or wrong, but its no justification.

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by scathing
Thus, if you want to bring circumstances into it, stoning as a punishment is morally valid.

Hey, I don't give a fuck. If someones done the crime, then for all I care you can put 'em slowly through a meat grinder. I might even try a burger :)

This case though, I don't think warrants the punishment. What do you think? Thumbs up or thumbs down?

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
You told me to have a nice cup?

If you read what I said again, more carefully this time, no I didn't.

I told you that, by your own assertions, unless you are perfect that you should be telling yourself to imbibe from the aforementioned beverage container.

[Bostonmess]

Yup, and I said I was quoting Christ as a direct relation to the woman being stoned, or haven't you got that far yet? :) Seems like I'm trying to reply to two posts at once :)

I've just thought *lies down* America used to have a culture of slavery. You could argue black people had their own culture within it. Ok, so they lived in the same country.

Hey, South Africa and sanctions. I'm not sure sanctions were a great idea but giving all proceeds for the sale of your record over there to amnesty international was pretty cool. :)

Chinese killing baby girls 'cos they want a boy.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
A guy breaks into an old biddy's house and tortures her to death and steals all her money. No matter what culture you're in, it's wrong. Not that I know of any cultures that allow this.

A guy rapes a young child; it's obviously wrong.

A woman gets buried up to her neck and then stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock. It's wrong.

Every culture in the world also used to believe that the world was flat. (Different cultures thought it rode on the back of animals, or whatever, but terra firma was flat). Saying otherwise was heresy, which is a sin, and thus wrong.

So are you saying that, because everyone said so, a century ago the planet was flat, and then miraculously it went spherical at some point?

Or (if you want to get into the "you're talking about facts, not morality", even though your justification is that because everyone says something is the case then it must be) slavery used to be permitted everywhere. There's not one society that hasn't had the practice.

However, we consider it to be wrong in this day and age. Does that mean that right and wrong can change? That its not "just right" like a monument against time. In that case, its quite possible that stoning people (like all fashion) might come back in vogue again, and these Muslims are just ahead of the times.


I'm hearing a whole bunch of assertions but not one justification. You're usually good on this Bostonmess - you know, providing a *reason* for things. Where are they now?

[flounder]

Originally posted by scathing
If you agree with His assertions and try to live by them, then you need to go make yourself a nice cup of STFU (ask Spingo, he'll help you out) since you're in no position to go around throwing any accusations.

Otherwise you can (as is the main assertion of SC's) live in hypocrisy. Its all the rage these days - its even trendier than being socially bisexual. That's so 1997, after all. [/B]

It is my belief that this is a little hissy fit, not that I'm in any position to express an opinion, Oh hang on, yes I am.Possibly someone might think that I am throwing around accusations if I do express an opinion. So the "Hissy fit" bit stands.
It is sooooo 1997 though.
:rolleyes:
This thread is annoying me now so I will try to find a "happy" place.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
Yup, and I said I was quoting Christ as a direct relation to the woman being stoned, or haven't you got that far yet? :)

Yes, I got that far.

And I was replying to it in the vein that the Church uses it as an analogy, for a moral lesson on your general conduct towards others.

If you want to use the words of Christ, expect that people may interpret it in the manner that His Church espouses.

[Bostonmess]

Maybe it's because I'm going up against you :)?

Why is it wrong to shag kids? You don't need to provide a reason. It just is.

So what do you think? Is it right for this woman to get her head bashed in because she had a child out of wedlock?

I don't get the world being flat thing. It's never been flat. Just because people thought it was doesn't make it so. It'snot right to bash a womans head in ofr having a child out of wedlock. Just because some people think it is doesn't make it so.

Of course argue cultural rights all you want, call me racist, fascist whatever. Apartheid in SA was wrong, killing babies in China is wrong, slavery in America was wrong and bashing this womans head in is wrong. Of course it's only mine and 90? percent of the planets (including you I suspect) opinion.

[and3w]

Originally posted by Whiskers
So its wrong to kill someone unless it is at their express request?
According to whom? You've shot yourself in the foot.
Don't be so silly. Everone has the right to end their own life, no one else's...If I cannot, due to physical innability, then I have the right to ask someone else to help me.
It has nothing to do with killing people against their will.

[and3w]

I think we are all mistaking culture for consciousness...every conscious person on this planet has the wish that this consciousness not end (cf Religion).
As such, if those conscious people believe this, then they also realise that all the other consciousness's around them have this wish.
This is why killing people is wrong everywhere.
Cultures then can impose, over this, BELIEFS that killing certain people is OK.
Below this, however, on a human level, all people know this is wrong.
That is it, end of story.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
Why is it wrong to shag kids? You don't need to provide a reason. It just is.

So you believe and do things without being able to give a reason? That's a symptom of insanity.

Of course, its also a symptom of genius, so I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. ;)

Can someone Photochop me a Guinness poster for "Draft Guiness. Pure Bostonmess"?

[Bostonmess]

C'mon Scathers, what do you think about this woman being stoned to death? Yay or nay?

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
So what do you think? Is it right for this woman to get her head bashed in because she had a child out of wedlock?

As I've stated, I can't really use the terms "right" and "wrong", since when I actually think about it (as I have started to in this thread) I find the entire premise flawed.

Its not to say that I don't use these terms a lot, but I'm not using them correctly.

I do, however, feel that bashing someone's head in (for whatever reason, even if its with the woman's full consent, signed in triplicate, after a full psychiatric examination, and a team of lawyers, philosophers, lobby groups, and a positive result from an informal poll on ZGeek) is socially unacceptable. I'll go out on a limb and even volunteer that even if the woman's crime was stealing a loaf of bread, and changing the implement from stones to, say, a 12" rubber dildo, doesn't make it any more socially acceptable. So, even in different circumstances (since apparently that makes a difference) its still not socially acceptable.

Hence why I don't do it, and I don't feel that other people should either.

The difference is that I don't delude myself into thinking that I'm right. Just that I conform to popular opinion (which was one of your justifications about why some things "just are" wrong, since no society condones it), which as I've illustrated can, and quite frequently is, wrong.

Hence why I mentioned the "Earth being flat" thing - popular opinion taken to be "right" when, in reality, its anything but.


(Edited to fix some gramattical errors and illustrate an assertion more clearly)

[Bostonmess]

Yup, you can more or less argue that nothing is proven. Who knows maybe none of this is happening, maybe we are all in the Matrix etc.

All we can do is express our opinions and defend them to the best of our beliefs.

I think they're a set of wankers and it doesn't bother me that that's how I think. They would probably think I was small minded and didn't see the bigger picture. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It's my opinion that they shouldn't be entitled to bash her head in.

[Mattryx]

I think there is really only one rule that can be applied in these sorts of debates.

Believe what you want, but don't go around trying to force others to believe what you believe.

[Bostonmess]

Yeah, believe what you want and don't be scared to express those beliefs so long as they're not advocating harming others.

What do you think Matrykx? Dare you express your opinion on whether her situation is right or wrong?

[scathing]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It's my opinion that they shouldn't be entitled to bash her head in.

Exactly. So, by the same token, its their opinion that they are entitled to bash her head in.

Lets get back to the jist of the thread.

Since everyone's entitled to their opinion, why should we force these stone-throwers to not throw them anymore? In their opinion, its OK. Actually, its more than OK. Its required of them. Its the law, its the command of Allah, its.....a moral imperative. Even if they don't want to, they believe that they have to.

So how do you balance out having everyone entitled to their opinion (and expressing it) against stopping things, in your opinion, shouldn't be done?

You can't without being a hypocrite but then if you don't then, by most belief systems, not doing something about what you consider to be wrong goes against your belief system and thus makes you a hypocrite anyway.

"The other evil we must fear is the indifference of good men", to quote from The Boondock Saints.

Damned if you do; damned if you don't. :(


I don't think I got the quote word perfect, so I'm expecting Flounder to have another shot at me since he's only got typos and improperly quoted text to heckle me with, rather than anything of substance. Anyway, you get the jist of it.

[Mattryx]

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one and we all think the others stink.

My opinion? Well I didn't really read the thread, but as I understand it we're talking about a woman getting stoned to death for having a child in wedlock? (Correct me if I'm wrong, and note that the following is based on that situation)

Its wrong. ;)

[Bostonmess]

Out of wedlock as in adultery:)

The threds actually about whether it's right to impose our beliefs onb another society for whatever reason.

We might be a wee bit off topic. :)

Scathing I'm not on about going over there and twatting anyone who picks up an half charlie. As I said earlier, if there are enough voices maybe one day they'll be heard. I don't hold any illusions that expressing my opinion is going to stop this shit from happening, but if everyone expressed it it might.

Like you say "Who's to say who's right?" Who the fuck knows, but I'll go along with my belief until my dieing breath. I won't hold back expressing it, because it's something I feel strongly about.

[Mattryx]

Well in that case. No, its not right to impose your beliefs onto anything or anyone for whatever reason.

[frednurk]

Impressive behavior people. 5 pages of intelligence and still on topic. *back pats all round*
Please excuse me if I fuck it all up.

My [insert coins] worth:-

Sustainability of the society.

Stone a woman to death for adultery? Is this right or wrong?
Give it a couple of hundred years and we will know.

Africans.
Some of them eat people.
Some of them fuck like rabbits.
Some of them have aids.

Are they wrong? Consider this:-

The current Secretary General of the United Nations is of African descent, and a bloody good SG he is at that.
Some women in Africa have the AIDs virus, but it is not killing them.
Current research would suggest we all derived from a common African ancestor.
African genetics would appear to be quite capable of sustaining themselves.

Will Africans survive into the future?
Are they right or wrong in their cultural practices?
Again, give it a couple of hundred years and we might know.

Western societies would like to have more consumers via an expanding population.
Some societies have too many people, and have laws to reduce population.
Who is right? Time will tell- the losers will die.

How do I judge what is right or wrong?
I think about sustainability, and the common good.
If the cultural practices of others leads to a lessening of my sustainability, then I judge them to be wrong. ( Caging civet cats along with other animals and producing SARS for example.)
Equally, I cannot condemn another culture for violently objecting to the imposition of my own cultural practices, if these undermine their sustainability. (Sexual promiscuity leads to disease, and so rape is characteristically condemned )

Euthanasia in Australia is legal if you do it to yourself, but illegal if you have physical or moral help. What this means is that only you can decide if you have had enough of life, and are incapable of one further single act to help the rest of us going forward into the future. To be so self-centered as to demand the right to assistance or tacit approval to kill yourself crosses the line.

Who wins and who loses in the imposition of beliefs?
We will all know after armageddon, which incidentally is looking more likely every day now.
I think that to stone a woman to death in Australia for adultery is wrong.
I think that to stone a woman to death in Saudi Arabia for adultery, is a judgement that only the individuals of that society can make. They and their children will have to deal with the consequences. The caveat to this is if the culture or society as a whole becomes a potential threat to me and my society. Then I got something to say.

[Bostonmess]

Originally posted by Mattryx
Well in that case. No, its not right to impose your beliefs onto anything or anyone for whatever reason.

It depends what we mean by impose our beliefs. If we go over there guns blazing and set up our own government with our laws, then yes it's wrong.

But if we talk them into it (I don't even know if that still classifies as imposing) then IMO that's ok.

To force your beliefs on someone. We all do this with minor trivial things, "Let's go to this pub" "Lets watch this Tv channel" etc.

It would be nice to be able to convince enough of them that what is happening is wrong. I won't hold my breath though.

[and3w]

Originally posted by frednurk

Africans.
Some of them eat people.
Some of them fuck like rabbits.
Some of them have aids.



Why African's?
All of these are done by people in UK / US and (I'm pretty sure) Aussies.

[flounder]

is this thread finally over?. i have been snoozing for 7 hours and it seems to have run it's course.
I aint ever doing a Marathon with Scathing or BM coz I'd be so puffed out from arguing the oxygen my muscles would need would be unavailable.Phew.
I bet you nothing will change with this poor woman being stoned.
(even that discussion will do fuck all) Only thing that will change anything is imposing military force then cultural change in that order. They will try it in Iraq.Then expand elsewhere.IMO
"When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will surely follow".

[Bostonmess]

Your box is/was full :)

[Mattryx]

Originally posted by Bostonmess
It depends what we mean by impose our beliefs. If we go over there guns blazing and set up our own government with our laws, then yes it's wrong.

But if we talk them into it (I don't even know if that still classifies as imposing) then IMO that's ok.

To force your beliefs on someone. We all do this with minor trivial things, "Let's go to this pub" "Lets watch this Tv channel" etc.

It would be nice to be able to convince enough of them that what is happening is wrong. I won't hold my breath though.

I have a problem with any form of imposting beliefs. Be it forceful or peaceful. Its not like I say to someone when I'm watching TV "this show is good, you have to like it as well", I couldn't care less if someone likes 24 as much as me (which btw is the best show on telly atm :p).

I might present my beliefs on various topics to people on a daily basis, but in no way do I impose them on people. Well, not intentionally.

The only conundrum)sp?) I face, is that work quite oftens puts me in a position where I inevitably have to force my beliefs on people, so that makes me something of a hypocrite. But I can see that....so I think that makes it not so bad.

[SmaSheD_CoW]

A few ppl seem to be going off track (and a few ppl's posts I have no fkn idea what they're talking about :p)

I don't think anybody would debate that if an Australian/American/British woman committed adultery and was sentenced to death by stoning in Australia/America/Britain, we would consider it wrong.

My question is does the fact that it is considered wrong in our society mean that it must necessarily be wrong in a different society?

[Bostonmess]

My question is does the fact that it is considered wrong in our society mean that it must necessarily be wrong in a different society?

My anserw is: No not necessarily (god I hate spelling that word).

Eating bacon in muslim countries is considered wrong, but it's ok in the West.

Obviously everyone has a right to their own beliefs and cultures. I have a right to mine. Not eating bacon over there doesn't bother me, facing a certain direction and kneeling down every so often to pray to their god doesn't bother me, wiping their arse with their left hand and eating with their right doesn't bother me, (yup you've seen it coming) burying a woman up to her neck because she had a child out of wedlock seriously bothers me.

I don't give a fuck about cultural rights or whatever anybody else thinks, personally I think it's wrong and I'm happy to say so.

[scathing]

Originally posted by SmaSheD_CoW
My question is does the fact that it is considered wrong in our society mean that it must necessarily be wrong in a different society?

Obviously not. Very few societies propagate the theory that its OK to do something "wrong". If it was acceptable, then it'd be "right".

However, I *thought* your question was if it was OK to force one society's concepts of right and wrong onto another, because that society feels the other's belief structure was wrong.

[Up_All_Night]

the question is, if its the womans society, is it her belief that she should get stoned to death, or is her society infringing on her beliefs

[Mattryx]

I doubt she thinks she should be stoned to death.

[SmaSheD_CoW]

Originally posted by scathing
However, I *thought* your question was if it was OK to force one society's concepts of right and wrong onto another, because that society feels the other's belief structure was wrong.

Erm yeah...that too :D

[ShadowNemesis]

I personally think she should be allowed to live.

But if they do end up stoning her to death, then the man who fathered her child should be buried up to the neck right beside her instead of walking free of the whole mess like he is doing.

[flounder]

So do I shadow, she isn't the one with rocks in her head....yet:eek:

[chefgod]

It really does not seem fair considering how dumb/naive/easy to root some people are. That may seem simplistic but some people are slaves to their hormones/emotions/sexual desires. Teenage girls risk pregnancy all the time for a quick forbidden nookie and thousands fall pregnant. Still if the punishment for farting was death, I would walk around with a cork up my arse. I would be willing to bet that there are few teenage pregnancies in countries where stoning was the consequence. I am also willing to bet that these countries would view our statistics as confirmation they are doing the right thing.
Do we have the right to enforce our beliefs? No, not if these people choose to live under these rules with free will. If people are aware of the consequences of their actions then so be it. Once again a simplistic view considering I live in a free democratic society with no capital punishment. However, if I travel overseas and break the laws of a country, then I should face the penalties applying to that country.
The bottom line I suppose is that no society on earth is perfect. Not one country has achieved Utopia. I often muse at the fact that when our Government "solves" one problem it creates 10 new ones as a result. How can one society push their beliefs on another when the product is so faulty?

[Bostonmess]

The man named as the father of the child reportedly denied having sex with her and the charges against him were dropped. She gave birth in January 2002 and was deserted by the child's father, who initially told tribal elders he was the father and would care for the baby girl. He later recanted his admission, swearing on the Koran that he was not the father of the child. Within days Amina was arrested for " adultery". The evidence was in her arms - a baby born outside of marriage whom no one would admit to fathering.

http://www.angelfire.com/stars/dorina/stoning.html

When I got busted for possession of pot, the cops told me I could get 11? years for allowing someone to smoke it in my home. I knew it was against the law in my country, but I couldn't help thinking it would have been a bit harsh.

[Bostonmess]

A Nigerian woman facing death by stoning for adultery broke down on the first day of her appeal in an Islamic court.

"I've never been this afraid," cried Amina Lawal as she was ringed by dozens of journalists, police and human rights workers.

"I'm tired of all this. All these cameras, all these policemen."

The 32-year-old divorcee was convicted of adultery in March 2002 by an Islamic court following the birth of her daughter, Wasila, out of wedlock.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12749008,00.html