|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 13, 2009 22:38:14 GMT -5
Ah, of course, because all the people I've named were black. You caught me, I'm really a member of the Ku Klux Klan and superstitious really was my code word for black. See, look at the definition of superstitious: –adjective 1. of the nature of, characterized by, or proceeding from superstition: superstitious fears. 2. pertaining to or connected with superstition: superstitious legends. 3. believing in, full of, or influenced by superstition. See how for all three definitions it says "being black"? See that? You totally called me on my racism. That's why it's a code word, not just a word. You can't say "black people are naturally inferior, that's why Africa has more crime than anywhere else". You have to say it sideways: "'swarthy gentlemen/illegal immigrants' are 'less civilised/refuse to intergrate' so they need 'better policing/stronger borders'" Technically, that statement isn't racist, but it is. Another is 'exotic' of Pat Robertson. It doesn't mean 'black' as such, but, in another very important way, it means black. "Education" can be a code word. I don't have a clue whether you are personally racist. I don't think that you are. But you did just use a racial code word. Perhaps without noticing it: it is possible, my mum does it all the time. Our cultures slide them in everywhere. Well I did elaborate on my point, did I not? I stated that regardless of income a person could be superstitious. And by superstitious, I really mean superstitious, as in believing in the irrational. That isn't just unique to Africa and I admit that. This is what happens when irrationality dominates a culture. Hell, 44% of Americans don't believe in evolution, and I'll tell you my opinion of those people: they are completely backwards and insane. You can be white and superstitious, you can be black and superstitious, you can be Asian and superstitious, etc. I just kinda take it personally when I'm accused of using code words which have racist meanings; I mean I'm not here with a Confederate Flag avatar talking about "states' rights" and "heritage" and "loving white people" or whatever the line is today.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 13, 2009 22:39:31 GMT -5
What's the rates of various different kinds of crime in Iran? Particularly armed theft, murder and rape. We're talking about a country in which a child can have his hand cut off for stealing And in the United States, defenceless mentally ill inmates are often given lethal injection. and a woman can be stoned to death for going outside without a male companion. It doesn't matter that you can . What matters is how many. I'm guessing lower crime rates simply because the government is so strict and tough on crime. Which doesn't actually reduce the crime rate. But we're not talking about normal raping for power; this is something that is backed by the idiotic thought, that is adopted by many religions, that homosexuality can be cured. 'Why' individual events happen, frankly, doesn't interest me. You cannot be sure that the perps are telling the truth, and not merely rationalising the attack of a random woman because they could. What interests me is preventing them, which requires knowledge of why large-scale trends occur and change.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 13, 2009 22:40:58 GMT -5
Here's something else to think about: in AIDS-ridden African nations, many people believe that having sex with a virgin will cure them of the virus. Now, are people just making excuses to have sex with virgins or do they actually believe that? I don't know, and, more importantly, it's impossible to find out. Which means it doesn't matter.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Mar 13, 2009 22:42:51 GMT -5
Just as a point of reference, what about male circumcision in the United States? It is extremely common but does not necessarily serve any clear medical purpose, and most do not know where the practise originates. There was a rather large thread discussing the topic before the last forum crashed yes; I'm sure major studies were reviewed including several historically important critiques? So why does the practise continue? It's held that a circumcision, if done right, can provide some hygiene benefits in life as the foreskin is an area where bacteria and other nasty things can develop. My high school health book actually made reference to this in the section on male reproduction and sexuality. Of note is that the concept also exists in the UK. The book "Bravo Two Zero" is an autobiography written by an SAS trooper whose team was captured during an op in the first Desert Storm. His interrogator was convinced that he and his men were Israeli, and as proof he showed his foreskin. However, shortly after that he realized that one of his men was of Syrian descent and so might have had one. He tried to get around it by noting that some parents do circumcisions for hygiene reasons, but it nearly backfired on him because the interrogator hadn't heard of the practice and so initially believed him to be lying to protect an Israeli operative. While there are some minor health benefits, in the modern day of hygiene and showering everyday, there really isn't much benefit to it . All you have to do is make sure that you clean it out. (recent studies show it may help defend against certain STD's, but this is of little benefit, as it isn't highly affective, thus you need to safe anyway; additionally this just a recent discovery, and wouldn't be a reason for anyone who had it done before like a year ago) The practice of male circumcision, at least in the US (not being highly Jewish), originated from a desire to keep men from masturbating, as it was generally believed if a young boy messed around with his foreskin to clean it, he would become aroused and masturbate. And this was when masturbation was considered a mental disease.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 13, 2009 22:43:03 GMT -5
That's why it's a code word, not just a word. You can't say "black people are naturally inferior, that's why Africa has more crime than anywhere else". You have to say it sideways: "'swarthy gentlemen/illegal immigrants' are 'less civilised/refuse to intergrate' so they need 'better policing/stronger borders'" Technically, that statement isn't racist, but it is. Another is 'exotic' of Pat Robertson. It doesn't mean 'black' as such, but, in another very important way, it means black. "Education" can be a code word. I don't have a clue whether you are personally racist. I don't think that you are. But you did just use a racial code word. Perhaps without noticing it: it is possible, my mum does it all the time. Our cultures slide them in everywhere. Well I did elaborate on my point, did I not? I stated that regardless of income a person could be superstitious. And by superstitious, I really mean superstitious, as in believing in the irrational. That isn't just unique to Africa and I admit that. This is what happens when irrationality dominates a culture. Hell, 44% of Americans don't believe in evolution, and I'll tell you my opinion of those people: they are completely backwards and insane. You can be white and superstitious, you can be black and superstitious, you can be Asian and superstitious, etc. So you're not a racist. Good. I just kinda take it personally when I'm accused of using code words which have racist meanings; I mean I'm not here with a Confederate Flag avatar talking about "states' rights" and "heritage" and "loving white people" or whatever the line is today. And that's entirely human nature.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Mar 13, 2009 22:45:39 GMT -5
Here's something else to think about: in AIDS-ridden African nations, many people believe that having sex with a virgin will cure them of the virus. Now, are people just making excuses to have sex with virgins or do they actually believe that? I don't know, and, more importantly, it's impossible to find out. Which means it doesn't matter. And accurate statistics about rape in Iran are impossible to find out, since even when it happens it generally doesn't get reported/and or it's the women's fault. That means your previous point doesn't matter. See how bad that argument is?
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 13, 2009 22:46:49 GMT -5
The Supreme Court struck that down a few years back, actually.
I disagree. I think it matters that the government sanctions this type of punishment.
Well, adding the morality police and religion into the mix, I think it does have an effect. I'm not saying that this is a good thing; they punish many things which are not crimes.
The point is, when it comes to religion, there are many people who do believe this sort of thing. Yes you want political and economic stability, but I also want to spread information which can help dispel such beliefs, if possible.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 13, 2009 22:50:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 13, 2009 22:55:40 GMT -5
I don't know, and, more importantly, it's impossible to find out. Which means it doesn't matter. And accurate statistics about rape in Iran are impossible to find out, Really? There are estimates of the number of women raped in the war in Congo . A country where getting from A to B is harder than anywhere on Earth except Brazil.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Mar 13, 2009 22:57:10 GMT -5
And accurate statistics about rape in Iran are impossible to find out, Really? There are estimates of the number of women raped in the war in Congo . A country where getting from A to B is harder than anywhere except Brazil. Note where I said accurate. Estimations by their nature aren't generally accurate. Edit: additionally, it depends on situations, there is more reason to estimate rape in the congo, as they don't have a solid court system. Iran has a solid court system, though terrible. And like I said, what we consider rape, they often dismiss, because they're so misogynist.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 13, 2009 23:01:40 GMT -5
Really? There are estimates of the number of women raped in the war in Congo . A country where getting from A to B is harder than anywhere except Brazil. Note where I said accurate. Estimations by their nature aren't generally accurate. Edit: additionally, it depends on situations, there is more reason to estimate rape in the congo, as they don't have a solid court system. Iran has a solid court system, though terrible. And like I said, what we consider rape, they often dismiss, because they're so misogynist. And this is why I say these rapes are different. In the Congo, rape is used as a tool of war. In Iran it is used as punishment in their legal system (or the prelude to the "real" punishment), and do so because of their religion. This means that you also have to erode away these stupid, disgusting beliefs as well.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 13, 2009 23:06:19 GMT -5
I disagree. I think it matters that the government sanctions this type of punishment. OK. I concede the point. Although, it's interesting that apart from the anti-feminism thing, Iran is actually quite the tolerant society, at least to those of the Jewish persuasion. Well, adding the morality police and religion into the mix, I think it does have an effect. I'm not saying that this is a good thing; they punish many things which are not crimes. What's called 'law and order'; the death penalty, long mandatory sentences, bad jails and 'three strikes and you're out'- while changing further the behaviour of 'rational' individuals- has failed magnificently at stopping the irrational, who were the cause of America's petty crime anyway, because the rational were already detered by the already existing legal and social punishments in place. Beyond a certain point of punishment, 'rational' individuals no longer commit crime.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 13, 2009 23:12:44 GMT -5
Really? There are estimates of the number of women raped in the war in Congo . A country where getting from A to B is harder than anywhere except Brazil. Note where I said accurate. Estimations by their nature aren't generally accurate. Statistics don't need correct down to the dozens. Even being a hundred off a year is absolutely fine. That's particularly so for finding out whether the problem is severe or not. If you wanted, you could even send a proper polling agency there, like Opinion Buisness Research or the Lancet, who do that kind of thing in disaster zones and in the middle of wars (they were the ones who found out the death toll from Operation Iraqi freedom).
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Mar 13, 2009 23:14:55 GMT -5
Note where I said accurate. Estimations by their nature aren't generally accurate. Statistics don't need correct down to the dozens. Even being a hundred off a year is absolutely fine. That's particularly so for finding out whether the problem is severe or not. If you wanted, you could even send a proper polling agency there, like Opinion Buisness Research or the Lancet, who do that kind of thing in disaster zones and in the middle of wars (they were the ones who found out the death toll from Operation Iraqi freedom). Well my edit did explain it to a degree too. It depends what information you use to estimate it. In the Congo estimates probably came from personal investigation (Not sure, haven't seen the estimates but that would be my guess), in Iran I don't think anyone has done a personal investigation and so estimates would probably come from the obviously biased and wrong government reports.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Mar 13, 2009 23:33:19 GMT -5
Thats just horrible.
|
|