If I could, I would that there were a real international government where states that abuse and ignore the rights of women were held accountable, by force if necessary
Great, so instead of just being in one quagmire, we've managed to invade the entire planet to try to force them to adhere to our views. Right or not, do you honestly think that would end well, for anyone?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
The reason we haven't gone up against most of the rest of the world to stop the injustices is because we'd have to go up against most of the rest of the world to stop the injustices.
I'd like to point out that this is one of the worst possible reasons for not doing something.
Great, so instead of just being in one quagmire, we've managed to invade the entire planet to try to force them to adhere to our views. Right or not, do you honestly think that would end well, for anyone?
I think approximately 50% of the Earth's population would directly and greatly benefit from it, and I think the long term the other half would mostly find it a benefit. So the majority of the world, yes.
Yeah, you're totally right. Let's go ahead and tell women it's okay to murder their husbands. That'll do the world some good!
The theory, I suppose, is that wives could threaten to use the guns in self defense, as opposed to the husbands who (so far, in this discussion) have no real justificaiton for beating their wives.
I think approximately 50% of the Earth's population would directly and greatly benefit from it, and I think the long term the other half would mostly find it a benefit. So the majority of the world, yes.
No, they wouldn't. Because we'd suffer the same fate that Germany did in WWII; and the only effect, long or short term, would be a lot of deaths.
Why do you think Martin Luther King Jr. succeeded where the civil war failed? Because kicking people's asses won't make them change their minds.
As Iraq has shown, it hasn't worked when we pooled all our resources against one country, so what makes you think that attacking places like China and India too will have any effect other than us swiftly losing a bloody war? We can't keep a lid on somewhat over 25 million people, and you think we can beat two billion?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
I think approximately 50% of the Earth's population would directly and greatly benefit from it, and I think the long term the other half would mostly find it a benefit. So the majority of the world, yes.
Confirm this for me. You believe that we should set up rules to protect women, and enforce them through military action?
Are you kidding me?
Don't get me wrong, domestic violence is evil. But the fact that you'd actually condone such an idea is ludicrous.
Replacing one crime with another doesn't make the second any more right.
I believed that when it was taught to me by my first grade teacher, but no more. Self-defense is indeed justified. If a woman has no outs but to attack her husband, as he keeps attacking her, and the authorities do not act, then certainly she has a right to attack her husband in whatever manner and is justified in doing so.
As Iraq has shown, it hasn't worked when we pooled all our resources against one country, so what makes you think that attacking places like China and India too will have any effect other than us swiftly losing a bloody war? We can't keep a lid on somewhat over 25 million people, and you think we can beat two billion?
I didn't say we had the resources to actually enforce international law. I only lamented that we do not. You'll note it was phrased as a hypothetical.
But yes, hypothetically, if you were to ask me, "Should there be swift justice against countries who ignore the rights of their citizens?" my answer would be yes, emphatically.
Surprisingly, a knowledge of international politics is not necessary to arrive at this conclusion. All you need know of human nature is enough to watch two nine year olds. One may punch the other repeatedly in the shoulder; they take delight in causing physical pain in others, as is human nature. The reaction of, "Quit it!" or "Stop!" does not deter these attacks. But suppose the other nine year old, even if smaller, fights back. The behavior soon ceases. Or consider shark attack victims who survived simply by punching the mammoth beast that was trying to take their leg. It's not necessary that you be able to beat an opponent to prevent them from attacking you; you just have to make it unprofitable for them to do so. You wouldn't eat a taco if the taco kept trying to punch you in the mouth.
I believed that when it was taught to me by my first grade teacher, but no more. Self-defense is indeed justified. If a woman has no outs but to attack her husband, as he keeps attacking her, and the authorities do not act, then certainly she has a right to attack her husband in whatever manner and is justified in doing so.
Most people could be benefited by the following:
1. Leave the dude.
2. Call the police and file a report.
3. Obtain a restraining order.
But yes, hypothetically, if you were to ask me, "Should there be swift justice against countries who ignore the rights of their citizens?" my answer would be yes, emphatically.
Unfortunately, it's not the big, bad government oppressing it's citizens; it's just how their culture works. Would you kill half the population of the planet to protect the rights of the other half?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
1. Leave the dude.
2. Call the police and file a report.
3. Obtain a restraining order.
Sounds a lot better than condoning murder.
It's not even that easy in the first world. There's social pressure brought to bear against them, very often by their own families. In most of Africa or the Muslim world you might as well forget about it.
I will condone any murder that is committed in self-defense. People have the right not to be victims. If he lifts his palm, pull out a knife. Simple.
Solace: I'm going to point out that this is the logic where the only way to insure international peace is to lay down your arms and not fight back, and it's bull**** logic. People are logical, profit-driven creatures. If you make it unprofitable to commit an action, that action will stop. You don't have to attack or kill or imprison every man; all you have to do is let people know that if you attack your wife (or your husband, but that's hardly a raging epidemic), they're liable to **** you up in return or you can go to jail.
People are logical, profit-driven creatures. If you make it unprofitable to commit an action, that action will stop. You don't have to attack or kill or imprison every man; all you have to do is let people know that if you attack your wife (or your husband, but that's hardly a raging epidemic), they're liable to **** you up in return or you can go to jail.
How many people decided it was unprofitable to be Jews after the Holocaust, and changed their religion? Did the dark ages manage to stamp out all rational thought? People stopped committing crimes after we developed a legal system, right? Australia banned some video game or another for being too bloody, and that stopped everyone from playing it because they instantly adopted the same moral attitude? ... is there a single instance throughout history where that reasoning has ever worked?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
It's not even that easy in the first world. There's social pressure brought to bear against them, very often by their own families. In most of Africa or the Muslim world you might as well forget about it.
I will condone any murder that is committed in self-defense. People have the right not to be victims. If he lifts his palm, pull out a knife. Simple.
You say they're under social pressure not to leave their husbands - what on Earth makes you believe they'd pick up a gun?
I'm going to point out that this is the logic where the only way to insure international peace is to lay down your arms and not fight back, and it's bull**** logic. People are logical, profit-driven creatures. If you make it unprofitable to commit an action, that action will stop. You don't have to attack or kill or imprison every man; all you have to do is let people know that if you attack your wife (or your husband, but that's hardly a raging epidemic), they're liable to **** you up in return or you can go to jail.
The world is not a fair or logical place. There are laws in place to defend and protect women, and by to your own admission, they don't work.
What do you want, government to become more focused on protecting women? You can't protect someone who won't admit they need it!
So what do you want me to say, that I think the abuse of women is bad and terrible and something should be done about it? Fine, I agree with you, but there's certainly nothing I can do, and I don't think you can do much more than enforce laws when given the opportunity.
How many people decided it was unprofitable to be Jews after the Holocaust, and changed their religion? Did the dark ages manage to stamp out all rational thought? People stopped committing crimes after we developed a legal system, right? Australia banned some video game or another for being too bloody, and that stopped everyone from playing it because they instantly adopted the same moral attitude? ... is there a single instance throughout history where that reasoning has ever worked?
Let me see if I understand the form of your argument correctly.
1) People commit crimes.
2) A system of laws and punishments have been established to commit crimes.
3) Crimes still occur. Therefore, laws and a system of punishment have no effect upon crime.
Is that a correct summary, or am I missing something?
You say they're under social pressure not to leave their husbands - what on Earth makes you believe they'd pick up a gun?
I didn't say they would pick up a gun. We were talking about hypotheticals. Butte has complained that it is militant feminism that is the problem, that men are the ones who are actually persecuted unfairly. I explained why this is not a problem, and it would be better if it were more of a problem. That is what you were attempting to contradict. At no point did my potential belief that tomorrow the women of the world would rise up and kill their husbands even come under question.
The world is not a fair or logical place.
There are laws in place to defend and protect women, and by to your own admission, they don't work.
What do you want, government to become more focused on protecting women? You can't protect someone who won't admit they need it!
This is dangerously close to the perpetual claims that whenever a group is oppressed, if they do not fight it to the last tooth and nail, or if any participate in their own oppression, they obviously, "Don't want" freedom, liberty, etc...
I think the founding fathers laid out a very good principle for government when they suggested that all human beings are born with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not, as some have misinterpreted it, indestructible, but the very carefully chosen, "inalienable". It cannot be made alien. You might travel abroad, but it remains your home. People might not care if others have these things, but everyone wants to live, everyone wants health, everyone wants to be able to say what they think and pray and worship or not as they choose, everyone wants to better themselves and their position. The desire is always there. Women are no more complacent than slaves were, although apologists in both cases have tried to continue the myth. Have the oppressed submitted under pain of death or torture? Sure. Is it impossible to break their spirit? I should say not. Have some gone to the extent to conform to the system and support the chains cast about them? Yes.
But does any woman or man want to be oppressed and held down, to be killed or tortured, to be silenced and disenfranchised? No.
Human beings are not saints. Plenty of women have kept silent to their own abuses. Plenty more have spoken out and suffered a worse fate for it. Our duty, what we can do, is to fight this oppression whereever we encounter it. But we do not. We condone the suffering of women. Were an ethnic minority of 1% of the population treated the same way women are treated in a country like Brazil, there would be outrage, we would not tolerate such racism, we would speak out and condemn them; we would not praise them as a free nation. But you may treat 50% this way so long as it is the female half that is maltreated. There is no matriarchy; the radical fringe is in this case only true equality. If someone were to defend the Holocaust by citing an instance of a Jew killing a German sometime in the 1930's, they would be outraged; but those that think themselves reasonable see no problem in derailing a conversation about the violence suffered against women by complaining that, well, their coworkers make jokes about men's intelligence, but they would be criticized, perhaps, for doing the same.
You're missing the fact that YOUR argument was that making an action unprofitable causes its immediate and complete cessation.
I did not. But this is not worth even five seconds devoted to it, so let us suppose I did and I retract that. Then the actual serious, relevant manner can be discussed in a relevant way, and we can see what can be done to reduce an epidemic problem throughout the world.
Is that a correct summary, or am I missing something?
You're missing your assumption that the mere fear of retaliation would control the rest of the planet. There's no way our army can police the entire planet... at all. And it would take the rest of the planet about five seconds to realize this. It's a nice thought, sure, but so is thinking they'll all stop just because we ask them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
Well, sadly, yes, it takes a while to bring crime down. But here's what I'm trying to say;
It's half the ****ing goddamn world.
Seriously. We're talking about a group where there's as many people in it as not. Women aren't even a minority, they're a plurality. What country can afford to cut half it's labour force out and think it's going to compete? Did you wonder if maybe it's not coincidence that there's an inverse relationship between poverty and women's rights? And we're not appealing to that enough. Why isn't our main slogan in Iraq right now, "Support Democracy- Don't Get Beaten Up and Raped All the Time!"? Why aren't we training as many women as men to use guns? If we want leverage, how about getting an additional 50% of the world on our side?
I didn't say they would pick up a gun. We were talking about hypotheticals. Butte has complained that it is militant feminism that is the problem, that men are the ones who are actually persecuted unfairly. I explained why this is not a problem, and it would be better if it were more of a problem. That is what you were attempting to contradict. At no point did my potential belief that tomorrow the women of the world would rise up and kill their husbands even come under question.
Perhaps the gradual grass-roots movement building up women's rights a little at a time is a more realistic long term goal, but it galls me nonetheless. I actually disagree completely with Butte- there's not nearly enough militant feminism. If more women trained in the use of guns, if women in these countries learned how to kill, we would see a sharp decline in misogynist violence over night.
I believed that when it was taught to me by my first grade teacher, but no more. Self-defense is indeed justified. If a woman has no outs but to attack her husband, as he keeps attacking her, and the authorities do not act, then certainly she has a right to attack her husband in whatever manner and is justified in doing so.
It's not even that easy in the first world. There's social pressure brought to bear against them, very often by their own families. In most of Africa or the Muslim world you might as well forget about it.
I will condone any murder that is committed in self-defense. People have the right not to be victims. If he lifts his palm, pull out a knife. Simple.
Honestly, I fail to see where, exactly, your explanation of the discussion applies.
This is dangerously close to the perpetual claims that whenever a group is oppressed, if they do not fight it to the last tooth and nail, or if any participate in their own oppression, they obviously, "Don't want" freedom, liberty, etc...
No, it most certainly is not!
I never once said they don't deserve justice. Not once. How can a government, or any body for that matter, be expected to punish an act when said body is unaware of that act's perpetration? The government, as much as they'd like to tell you otherwise, is not omniscient.
I think the founding fathers laid out a very good principle for government when they suggested that all human beings are born with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not, as some have misinterpreted it, indestructible, but the very carefully chosen, "inalienable". It cannot be made alien. You might travel abroad, but it remains your home. People might not care if others have these things, but everyone wants to live, everyone wants health, everyone wants to be able to say what they think and pray and worship or not as they choose, everyone wants to better themselves and their position. The desire is always there. Women are no more complacent than slaves were, although apologists in both cases have tried to continue the myth. Have the oppressed submitted under pain of death or torture? Sure. Is it impossible to break their spirit? I should say not. Have some gone to the extent to conform to the system and support the chains cast about them? Yes.
So now you're comparing domestic violence to slavery?
Where do you get the idea that this is rational?
But does any woman or man want to be oppressed and held down, to be killed or tortured, to be silenced and disenfranchised? No.
The natural reaction is Fight-or-Flight, of course - but again, by your own admission, social expectations prevent this response from dictating the reaction of the victims. That's not my problem, that's societies problem, and the past has shown that just because something is "right" or "correct" doesn't mean society accepts it, or adopts it; usually, it means just the opposite.
Human beings are not saints. Plenty of women have kept silent to their own abuses. Plenty more have spoken out and suffered a worse fate for it. Our duty, what we can do, is to fight this oppression whereever we encounter it. But we do not. We condone the suffering of women. Were an ethnic minority of 1% of the population treated the same way women are treated in a country like Brazil, there would be outrage, we would not tolerate such racism, we would speak out and condemn them; we would not praise them as a free nation. But you may treat 50% this way so long as it is the female half that is maltreated. There is no matriarchy; the radical fringe is in this case only true equality. If someone were to defend the Holocaust by citing an instance of a Jew killing a German sometime in the 1930's, they would be outraged; but those that think themselves reasonable see no problem in derailing a conversation about the violence suffered against women by complaining that, well, their coworkers make jokes about men's intelligence, but they would be criticized, perhaps, for doing the same.
So what is this thread about, then?
To me, this thread is solely a place for you to complain about the treatment of women in the world, which is a noble goal, but you're not going to raise awareness on a Magic forum.
There's nothing to debate here. What's the dissenting opinion going to do, tell you that women don't deserve justice or equal treatment?
I did not. But this is not worth even five seconds devoted to it, so let us suppose I did and I retract that. Then the actual serious, relevant manner can be discussed in a relevant way, and we can see what can be done to reduce an epidemic problem throughout the world.
Solace: I'm going to point out that this is the logic where the only way to insure international peace is to lay down your arms and not fight back, and it's bull**** logic. People are logical, profit-driven creatures. If you make it unprofitable to commit an action, that action will stop. You don't have to attack or kill or imprison every man; all you have to do is let people know that if you attack your wife (or your husband, but that's hardly a raging epidemic), they're liable to **** you up in return or you can go to jail.
What, are you trying to swindle me? What on Earth are you doing here?
Did you wonder if maybe it's not coincidence that there's an inverse relationship between poverty and women's rights? And we're not appealing to that enough. Why isn't our main slogan in Iraq right now, "Support Democracy- Don't Get Beaten Up and Raped All the Time!"? Why aren't we training as many women as men to use guns? If we want leverage, how about getting an additional 50% of the world on our side?
They're taught to not care. Besides, all else aside, the men in their households are feeding them; they just aren't getting the opportunity for themselves.
It has more to do with economic freedom than with political action, at this point.
Honestly, I fail to see where, exactly, your explanation of the discussion applies.
Did you read the discussion? That might be the crucial flaw. I was talking about how I wished women would do these things. At no point did I say it was an immediately likely outcome.
No, it most certainly is not!
I never once said they don't deserve justice. Not once. How can a government, or any body for that matter, be expected to punish an act when said body is unaware of that act's perpetration? The government, as much as they'd like to tell you otherwise, is not omniscient.
You indicated that it was the fault of women who don't report this violence, which, yes, is in fact very close to that. There needs to be active political campaigns against this sort of violence. Women who have been beaten and abused in a culture that condones this sort of violence, even blames them for it, will not suddenly realize that now is the time when someone is willing to listen to them without a public effort being made to address the problem. And they're right to do so, because it's not at all rare for victims of abuse, even in the United States, to go to authorities with a concern, only to taken back to their abuser by the police, no action taken, and then end up suffering more because they tried to get help.
So now you're comparing domestic violence to slavery?
Where do you get the idea that this is rational?
How ever did I get the idea that people kept in a position of subservience and bondage through violence, told that they were inferior, and denied rights by the law were like people that were kept in a position of subservience and bondage through violence, told that they were inferior, and denied rights by the law? I don't know, I must have been smoking something.
The natural reaction is Fight-or-Flight, of course - but again, by your own admission, social expectations prevent this response from dictating the reaction of the victims. That's not my problem, that's societies problem, and the past has shown that just because something is "right" or "correct" doesn't mean society accepts it, or adopts it; usually, it means just the opposite.
Until active attention is paid and efforts are made to change society, anyway.
So what is this thread about, then?
To me, this thread is solely a place for you to complain about the treatment of women in the world, which is a noble goal, but you're not going to raise awareness on a Magic forum.
There's nothing to debate here. What's the dissenting opinion going to do, tell you that women don't deserve justice or equal treatment?
They could certainly attempt to suggest ways that people can affect a change. Or, for instance, how people should be enabled to react to it- my inclination, for instance, is that a nation that deprives 50% of it's citizens of their rights is no longer sovereign. That's just me. Some people seem to disagree with this.
What, are you trying to swindle me? What on Earth are you doing here?
They're taught to not care. Besides, all else aside, the men in their households are feeding them; they just aren't getting the opportunity for themselves.
It has more to do with economic freedom than with political action, at this point.
And is it easier to build an economy with 50% of the population as dependents, or as workers?
Well, sadly, yes, it takes a while to bring crime down. But here's what I'm trying to say;
It's half the ****ing goddamn world.
No, it's more than half the world. And you see, the women there believe it too. What do you really think we can do there? We can't change the attitudes of a country a tenth the size of ours, so how do you propose we magically fix a population ten times larger? Yes, it would be awesome to make all the problems in the world better, but do you actually have the slightest semblance of a plan to back that ideology? There's a big difference in identifying a thousand-year old problem, and actually rectifying it...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
There needs to be active political campaigns against this sort of violence. Women who have been beaten and abused in a culture that condones this sort of violence, even blames them for it, will not suddenly realize that now is the time when someone is willing to listen to them without a public effort being made to address the problem. And they're right to do so, because it's not at all rare for victims of abuse, even in the United States, to go to authorities with a concern, only to taken back to their abuser by the police, no action taken, and then end up suffering more because they tried to get help.
I don't know how much attention you pay to politics, but those sorts of things happen every single day.
How ever did I get the idea that people kept in a position of subservience and bondage through violence, told that they were inferior, and denied rights by the law were like people that were kept in a position of subservience and bondage through violence, told that they were inferior, and denied rights by the law? I don't know, I must have been smoking something.
How about the fact that women have a choice? They're told not to leave by family members or whatever, but regardless of coercion, there is a rather large difference between voluntary submission to these happenings and involuntary servitude.
So yes, the fact that they're coerced to stay is terrible, but who's going to disagree with you on that?
They could certainly attempt to suggest ways that people can affect a change. Or, for instance, how people should be enabled to react to it- my inclination, for instance, is that a nation that deprives 50% of it's citizens of their rights is no longer sovereign. That's just me. Some people seem to disagree with this.
That's hardly a dissenting opinion. You must at least concede that this thread is in the wrong forum.
Whether or not you interpreted it that way is out of my hands. I know for a fact that I never intended it that way.
Then what, exactly, do you mean by suggesting that because women don't report it, there is nothing that the governments in question can do to prevent such abuse?
I don't know how much attention you pay to politics, but those sorts of things happen every single day.
They don't. And I meant more than having a little march and feeling good about ourselves, I mean an actual attempt to bring this problem to light, and provide people with information about where and who they can go to for help and their basic rights.
How about the fact that women have a choice? They're told not to leave by family members or whatever, but regardless of coercion, there is a rather large difference between voluntary submission to these happenings and involuntary servitude.
There is no "Regardless of coercion". Coercion has to be regarded very much indeed when dealing with this issue. This statement is close to being nonsensical.
So yes, the fact that they're coerced to stay is terrible, but who's going to disagree with you on that?
The people doing it. And, to paraphrase Hotel Rwanda, yes, people are willing to stop from their dinner and look at the news and say, "Oh my God, that's terrible"- but then they go back to eating their dinner. I've known people right here, in one of the richest counties in the most powerful nation on Earth who had known or suspected of women who were struck by their husbands, but they were afraid to do anything about it. It's especially bad in immigrant communities where people think that protecting women's rights would be "Imposing on their culture".
I'm sorry, no, that hasn't worked either.
That's hardly a dissenting opinion. You must at least concede that this thread is in the wrong forum.
What forum do you think would be better? The fact that I have posted a thread and do not personally think that there are many positions that are defendable is certainly not a unique thing in this forum.
Your clear, evidenced, and referenced lie is what I'm on about.
Lie in this case meaning, "To say that an action will stop an example and then not clarify that this does not mean that all crime and violence will stop forever and we'll have s'mores, because you assume the person reading this is neither obstreperous nor a moron", sure.
Solace: When he says "Half the world," he means "women." It's bad numbers, but it looks better when he says "half the world."
Yeah, saying half the world's population is women. Such bad math. It's like I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass.
No, it's more than half the world. And you see, the women there believe it too. What do you really think we can do there? We can't change the attitudes of a country a tenth the size of ours, so how do you propose we magically fix a population ten times larger? Yes, it would be awesome to make all the problems in the world better, but do you actually have the slightest semblance of a plan to back that ideology? There's a big difference in identifying a thousand-year old problem, and actually rectifying it...
Recognizing it is the first step to solving it. And the problem is not recognized. This is the greatest problem facing the world today, it is the source of much poverty and misery, it heightens and worsens violence and conflict abroad, it plagues and corrupts both victim and victor, and what is done about it? Which major Presidential cantidate last discussed women's rights abroad, much less at home?
But why aren't we pushing that? When we occupied Japan and Germany during the reconstructions there, we didn't concede to existing racial or sexist norms; we demanded that they build their government along democratic lines and give everyone a fair shake, that human rights be respected without regard to race, gender, or religion. No matter how arrogant or hypocritical it was of us to do this, the results obviously stand by the decision; of the three occupying powers of the time who helped design the constitution of Germany based upon their own (America, France, the UK), and the two nations whose constitutions they designed (Japan and Germany), all five occupy the highest GDPs of nations not numbering over a billion in population. This model clearly works; why are we not pushing a form of government that we know works? The Iraqui constitution, while admirable in many ways, does declare Islam as the official state religion, and what's more, decrees that no laws may be passed that violate the laws of Islam. Under the freedom of expression in all forms guaranteed to Iraqis lies the most ridiculous caveat; except where it violates public morality and order.
Great, so instead of just being in one quagmire, we've managed to invade the entire planet to try to force them to adhere to our views. Right or not, do you honestly think that would end well, for anyone?
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
I'd like to point out that this is one of the worst possible reasons for not doing something.
If you don't mind when it's the husbands murdering their wives, I hardly see why the reverse is any worse.
I think approximately 50% of the Earth's population would directly and greatly benefit from it, and I think the long term the other half would mostly find it a benefit. So the majority of the world, yes.
Replacing one crime with another doesn't make the second any more right.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
No, they wouldn't. Because we'd suffer the same fate that Germany did in WWII; and the only effect, long or short term, would be a lot of deaths.
Why do you think Martin Luther King Jr. succeeded where the civil war failed? Because kicking people's asses won't make them change their minds.
As Iraq has shown, it hasn't worked when we pooled all our resources against one country, so what makes you think that attacking places like China and India too will have any effect other than us swiftly losing a bloody war? We can't keep a lid on somewhat over 25 million people, and you think we can beat two billion?
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
Confirm this for me. You believe that we should set up rules to protect women, and enforce them through military action?
Are you kidding me?
Don't get me wrong, domestic violence is evil. But the fact that you'd actually condone such an idea is ludicrous.
I believed that when it was taught to me by my first grade teacher, but no more. Self-defense is indeed justified. If a woman has no outs but to attack her husband, as he keeps attacking her, and the authorities do not act, then certainly she has a right to attack her husband in whatever manner and is justified in doing so.
I didn't say we had the resources to actually enforce international law. I only lamented that we do not. You'll note it was phrased as a hypothetical.
But yes, hypothetically, if you were to ask me, "Should there be swift justice against countries who ignore the rights of their citizens?" my answer would be yes, emphatically.
Surprisingly, a knowledge of international politics is not necessary to arrive at this conclusion. All you need know of human nature is enough to watch two nine year olds. One may punch the other repeatedly in the shoulder; they take delight in causing physical pain in others, as is human nature. The reaction of, "Quit it!" or "Stop!" does not deter these attacks. But suppose the other nine year old, even if smaller, fights back. The behavior soon ceases. Or consider shark attack victims who survived simply by punching the mammoth beast that was trying to take their leg. It's not necessary that you be able to beat an opponent to prevent them from attacking you; you just have to make it unprofitable for them to do so. You wouldn't eat a taco if the taco kept trying to punch you in the mouth.
Most people could be benefited by the following:
1. Leave the dude.
2. Call the police and file a report.
3. Obtain a restraining order.
Sounds a lot better than condoning murder.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
Unfortunately, it's not the big, bad government oppressing it's citizens; it's just how their culture works. Would you kill half the population of the planet to protect the rights of the other half?
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
It's not even that easy in the first world. There's social pressure brought to bear against them, very often by their own families. In most of Africa or the Muslim world you might as well forget about it.
I will condone any murder that is committed in self-defense. People have the right not to be victims. If he lifts his palm, pull out a knife. Simple.
Solace: I'm going to point out that this is the logic where the only way to insure international peace is to lay down your arms and not fight back, and it's bull**** logic. People are logical, profit-driven creatures. If you make it unprofitable to commit an action, that action will stop. You don't have to attack or kill or imprison every man; all you have to do is let people know that if you attack your wife (or your husband, but that's hardly a raging epidemic), they're liable to **** you up in return or you can go to jail.
How many people decided it was unprofitable to be Jews after the Holocaust, and changed their religion? Did the dark ages manage to stamp out all rational thought? People stopped committing crimes after we developed a legal system, right? Australia banned some video game or another for being too bloody, and that stopped everyone from playing it because they instantly adopted the same moral attitude? ... is there a single instance throughout history where that reasoning has ever worked?
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
You say they're under social pressure not to leave their husbands - what on Earth makes you believe they'd pick up a gun?
The world is not a fair or logical place. There are laws in place to defend and protect women, and by to your own admission, they don't work.
What do you want, government to become more focused on protecting women? You can't protect someone who won't admit they need it!
So what do you want me to say, that I think the abuse of women is bad and terrible and something should be done about it? Fine, I agree with you, but there's certainly nothing I can do, and I don't think you can do much more than enforce laws when given the opportunity.
Let me see if I understand the form of your argument correctly.
1) People commit crimes.
2) A system of laws and punishments have been established to commit crimes.
3) Crimes still occur. Therefore, laws and a system of punishment have no effect upon crime.
Is that a correct summary, or am I missing something?
You're missing the fact that YOUR argument was that making an action unprofitable causes its immediate and complete cessation.
I didn't say they would pick up a gun. We were talking about hypotheticals. Butte has complained that it is militant feminism that is the problem, that men are the ones who are actually persecuted unfairly. I explained why this is not a problem, and it would be better if it were more of a problem. That is what you were attempting to contradict. At no point did my potential belief that tomorrow the women of the world would rise up and kill their husbands even come under question.
This is dangerously close to the perpetual claims that whenever a group is oppressed, if they do not fight it to the last tooth and nail, or if any participate in their own oppression, they obviously, "Don't want" freedom, liberty, etc...
I think the founding fathers laid out a very good principle for government when they suggested that all human beings are born with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not, as some have misinterpreted it, indestructible, but the very carefully chosen, "inalienable". It cannot be made alien. You might travel abroad, but it remains your home. People might not care if others have these things, but everyone wants to live, everyone wants health, everyone wants to be able to say what they think and pray and worship or not as they choose, everyone wants to better themselves and their position. The desire is always there. Women are no more complacent than slaves were, although apologists in both cases have tried to continue the myth. Have the oppressed submitted under pain of death or torture? Sure. Is it impossible to break their spirit? I should say not. Have some gone to the extent to conform to the system and support the chains cast about them? Yes.
But does any woman or man want to be oppressed and held down, to be killed or tortured, to be silenced and disenfranchised? No.
Human beings are not saints. Plenty of women have kept silent to their own abuses. Plenty more have spoken out and suffered a worse fate for it. Our duty, what we can do, is to fight this oppression whereever we encounter it. But we do not. We condone the suffering of women. Were an ethnic minority of 1% of the population treated the same way women are treated in a country like Brazil, there would be outrage, we would not tolerate such racism, we would speak out and condemn them; we would not praise them as a free nation. But you may treat 50% this way so long as it is the female half that is maltreated. There is no matriarchy; the radical fringe is in this case only true equality. If someone were to defend the Holocaust by citing an instance of a Jew killing a German sometime in the 1930's, they would be outraged; but those that think themselves reasonable see no problem in derailing a conversation about the violence suffered against women by complaining that, well, their coworkers make jokes about men's intelligence, but they would be criticized, perhaps, for doing the same.
I did not. But this is not worth even five seconds devoted to it, so let us suppose I did and I retract that. Then the actual serious, relevant manner can be discussed in a relevant way, and we can see what can be done to reduce an epidemic problem throughout the world.
You're missing your assumption that the mere fear of retaliation would control the rest of the planet. There's no way our army can police the entire planet... at all. And it would take the rest of the planet about five seconds to realize this. It's a nice thought, sure, but so is thinking they'll all stop just because we ask them.
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
It's half the ****ing goddamn world.
Seriously. We're talking about a group where there's as many people in it as not. Women aren't even a minority, they're a plurality. What country can afford to cut half it's labour force out and think it's going to compete? Did you wonder if maybe it's not coincidence that there's an inverse relationship between poverty and women's rights? And we're not appealing to that enough. Why isn't our main slogan in Iraq right now, "Support Democracy- Don't Get Beaten Up and Raped All the Time!"? Why aren't we training as many women as men to use guns? If we want leverage, how about getting an additional 50% of the world on our side?
No, it most certainly is not!
I never once said they don't deserve justice. Not once. How can a government, or any body for that matter, be expected to punish an act when said body is unaware of that act's perpetration? The government, as much as they'd like to tell you otherwise, is not omniscient.
So now you're comparing domestic violence to slavery?
Where do you get the idea that this is rational?
The natural reaction is Fight-or-Flight, of course - but again, by your own admission, social expectations prevent this response from dictating the reaction of the victims. That's not my problem, that's societies problem, and the past has shown that just because something is "right" or "correct" doesn't mean society accepts it, or adopts it; usually, it means just the opposite.
So what is this thread about, then?
To me, this thread is solely a place for you to complain about the treatment of women in the world, which is a noble goal, but you're not going to raise awareness on a Magic forum.
There's nothing to debate here. What's the dissenting opinion going to do, tell you that women don't deserve justice or equal treatment?
What, are you trying to swindle me? What on Earth are you doing here?
They're taught to not care. Besides, all else aside, the men in their households are feeding them; they just aren't getting the opportunity for themselves.
It has more to do with economic freedom than with political action, at this point.
Did you read the discussion? That might be the crucial flaw. I was talking about how I wished women would do these things. At no point did I say it was an immediately likely outcome.
You indicated that it was the fault of women who don't report this violence, which, yes, is in fact very close to that. There needs to be active political campaigns against this sort of violence. Women who have been beaten and abused in a culture that condones this sort of violence, even blames them for it, will not suddenly realize that now is the time when someone is willing to listen to them without a public effort being made to address the problem. And they're right to do so, because it's not at all rare for victims of abuse, even in the United States, to go to authorities with a concern, only to taken back to their abuser by the police, no action taken, and then end up suffering more because they tried to get help.
How ever did I get the idea that people kept in a position of subservience and bondage through violence, told that they were inferior, and denied rights by the law were like people that were kept in a position of subservience and bondage through violence, told that they were inferior, and denied rights by the law? I don't know, I must have been smoking something.
Until active attention is paid and efforts are made to change society, anyway.
They could certainly attempt to suggest ways that people can affect a change. Or, for instance, how people should be enabled to react to it- my inclination, for instance, is that a nation that deprives 50% of it's citizens of their rights is no longer sovereign. That's just me. Some people seem to disagree with this.
...the Hell you on about?
And is it easier to build an economy with 50% of the population as dependents, or as workers?
What I'm saying is that it will take economic freedom for them to recognize that.
No, it's more than half the world. And you see, the women there believe it too. What do you really think we can do there? We can't change the attitudes of a country a tenth the size of ours, so how do you propose we magically fix a population ten times larger? Yes, it would be awesome to make all the problems in the world better, but do you actually have the slightest semblance of a plan to back that ideology? There's a big difference in identifying a thousand-year old problem, and actually rectifying it...
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
Whether or not you interpreted it that way is out of my hands. I know for a fact that I never intended it that way.
I don't know how much attention you pay to politics, but those sorts of things happen every single day.
How about the fact that women have a choice? They're told not to leave by family members or whatever, but regardless of coercion, there is a rather large difference between voluntary submission to these happenings and involuntary servitude.
So yes, the fact that they're coerced to stay is terrible, but who's going to disagree with you on that?
I'm sorry, no, that hasn't worked either.
That's hardly a dissenting opinion. You must at least concede that this thread is in the wrong forum.
Your clear, evidenced, and referenced lie is what I'm on about.
Solace: When he says "Half the world," he means "women." It's bad numbers, but it looks better when he says "half the world."
Then what, exactly, do you mean by suggesting that because women don't report it, there is nothing that the governments in question can do to prevent such abuse?
They don't. And I meant more than having a little march and feeling good about ourselves, I mean an actual attempt to bring this problem to light, and provide people with information about where and who they can go to for help and their basic rights.
There is no "Regardless of coercion". Coercion has to be regarded very much indeed when dealing with this issue. This statement is close to being nonsensical.
The people doing it. And, to paraphrase Hotel Rwanda, yes, people are willing to stop from their dinner and look at the news and say, "Oh my God, that's terrible"- but then they go back to eating their dinner. I've known people right here, in one of the richest counties in the most powerful nation on Earth who had known or suspected of women who were struck by their husbands, but they were afraid to do anything about it. It's especially bad in immigrant communities where people think that protecting women's rights would be "Imposing on their culture".
What forum do you think would be better? The fact that I have posted a thread and do not personally think that there are many positions that are defendable is certainly not a unique thing in this forum.
Lie in this case meaning, "To say that an action will stop an example and then not clarify that this does not mean that all crime and violence will stop forever and we'll have s'mores, because you assume the person reading this is neither obstreperous nor a moron", sure.
Yeah, saying half the world's population is women. Such bad math. It's like I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass.
Recognizing it is the first step to solving it. And the problem is not recognized. This is the greatest problem facing the world today, it is the source of much poverty and misery, it heightens and worsens violence and conflict abroad, it plagues and corrupts both victim and victor, and what is done about it? Which major Presidential cantidate last discussed women's rights abroad, much less at home?
But why aren't we pushing that? When we occupied Japan and Germany during the reconstructions there, we didn't concede to existing racial or sexist norms; we demanded that they build their government along democratic lines and give everyone a fair shake, that human rights be respected without regard to race, gender, or religion. No matter how arrogant or hypocritical it was of us to do this, the results obviously stand by the decision; of the three occupying powers of the time who helped design the constitution of Germany based upon their own (America, France, the UK), and the two nations whose constitutions they designed (Japan and Germany), all five occupy the highest GDPs of nations not numbering over a billion in population. This model clearly works; why are we not pushing a form of government that we know works? The Iraqui constitution, while admirable in many ways, does declare Islam as the official state religion, and what's more, decrees that no laws may be passed that violate the laws of Islam. Under the freedom of expression in all forms guaranteed to Iraqis lies the most ridiculous caveat; except where it violates public morality and order.