You quoted this: “Tutton also said the “3 kids” mentioned by Krauss were in fact two men who forcibly tried to sit in the female section.”
How could they have “forcibly tried to sit in the female section.” if they were being allowed to sit wherever they liked?
And then you added that they were offered seats in the “women’s section” (the existence of which is enough for any sensible person to realize that there was gender segregation), “with the sole proviso that they were not sitting next to women who did not want to sit next to men”. This obviously means your statement: “people where free to sit anywhere they liked” is false.
Again: What if the BNP held an event in the same venue and set up a white only section. Would you object to the practice being labeled racial segregation, as long as they also set up a section for those whites who wanted to sit next to blacks, and offered up a few seats in the white section to black protesters, as long as they didn’t sit next whites that didn’t want to sit next to blacks?
While I agree that using murder to punish or control the sexual behavior of women is completely reprehensible and unacceptable, I’m not sure those attitudes are so specific or unique to Islam as you suggest.
Most western legal traditions have long recognized, in many cases up to within the past century or even half-century, the concept of adultery as a justification for killing a wife; in Roman law, either the adulterous wife’s husband or father might be entitled to kill her. Both British common law and many US state statutes automatically downgraded charges of murder to manslaughter if the killing occurred as a result of discovering the wife’s adultery. This attitude still affected judicial decisions as late as 2008:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very glad this abhorrent attitude appears to be dying in western cultures, and I hope Islamic cultures will also abandon it as swiftly and completely as possible. I just think our western stance on the moral high ground is a bit shaky when we say “Your brutal and misogynistic violent control of women’s sexuality that was an intrinsic part of our own ancestral culture and that we didn’t fully renounce until within the last several decades is horribly damaging to your image! How can you barbarians even think it could possibly be okay to condone men killing women for sexual misbehavior the way the Brazilian court system still did as recently as 1991?!!?”
Yes, I know. I wasn’t moving the goalposts: I explicitly said that my answer to the question about countries would depend on which community within each country I was considering.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Obviously, it is possible to find communities of Muslims that are gay-positive, and communities of Jews (in America or Israel) that are not.
This is weaseling. The question was about countries and not communities. Obviously, in that case, the question concerns the qualities that are determined at the country and not at the community level - issues like legal status, for example, or other rights that are afforded by the state.
Sure, I’d rather be a gay independently-wealthy adult with liberal friends in (say) Jordan, than an impoverished ultra-Orthodox gay teenager suffering a repressive existence in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem. That, however, says nothing whatsoever of any use about Jordan as compared with Israel - the reverse is also true (I’d rather be a gay independently-wealthy adult with liberal friends in Tel Aviv than an impoverished Muslim teen living in a repressive ultra-religious community in Jordan).
However, looking at the full range of rights, and totally ignorant of which person I’m likely to be, which country is better to be gay in? Unquestionably, Israel - though homosexuality is not per se illegal in Jordan, the range of rights is far wider in Israel.
It is a point not in contention, and not responsive to the question.
The US has allowed openly gay people to serve in our military since, um, 2011.
Prior to that, since 1993 we had the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, in which openly gay servicepeople weren’t allowed but we didn’t mind if we didn’t know about them.
According to my googling, 1993 was also the year in which openly gay people were first allowed to serve in the Israeli military. Props to Israel for that, definitely!
But I do think it’s worth pointing out that these major victories for equality are still all clustered within the past quarter-century. Most Americans alive today can easily remember a time when US society as a whole was no more accepting of or positive toward homosexuality than most Muslim societies today are, even if we didn’t criminalize it so harshly.
(And, of course, there are still many individual Americans who oppose equal rights for homosexuals, and some who even still support killing them, so there’s that.)
Like I said, I’m not trying to disparage the recent gains that many western societies have made in promoting equality and freedom. I just don’t think the timeline supports the sort of very sharp and fundamental “civilized vs. barbarian” dichotomy that many westerners claim exists between western and Islamic societies.
Especially since, in a number of cases, legal penalties for homosexuality were first introduced to Islamic societies by western colonial powers. I can kind of see why Muslims might get exasperated at being lectured by westerners on the despicable evils of discriminating against homosexuals when it was western colonial powers who originally insisted on such discrimination and only got around to changing their minds about it a couple-three decades ago.
I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean. “Goalpost-moving” and “weaseling” are when you pretend you’re giving an answer to one question but really you’re answering a different one.
But I didn’t claim to be giving an answer to Hank Beecher’s question about which country I would prefer. I explicitly said that my answer would depend on further information, namely, subcultures within the country in question.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Sure, I’d rather be a gay independently-wealthy adult with liberal friends in (say) Jordan, than an impoverished ultra-Orthodox gay teenager suffering a repressive existence in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem.
[/quote]
Which was kind of my point.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
However, looking at the full range of rights, and totally ignorant of which person I’m likely to be, which country is better to be gay in?
[/quote]
But that wasn’t the question Hank Beecher asked me.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
It is a point not in contention, and not responsive to the question.
[/QUOTE]
It’s the point I’m making about the question, though. Sorry you don’t like it, but then, you weren’t the one who asked the question in the first place.
While I agree that the distinction can be overdrawn given the historic persecution of gays in Western nations, I rather approve of labeling anti-gay persecution as “barbaric” and “uncivilized” no matter where it occurs - don’t you?
It isn’t the case that Western nations deserve some sort of historic award for always having been “more civilized”, or ought to lord it over other societies and nations. You are quite correct to point that out.
However, anti-gay persecution is, simply, objectively wrong; and I do think that getting rid of it is an increase in “civilization” and a decrease in practices that are “barbaric”.
Sure, those living in Western nations committed acts and had laws “uncivilized” and “barbaric” too! Now, increasingly, we are learning better.
Sure, but which would you prefer - that folks in the West spare the feelings of those (presumably the majority) living in non-Western societies by refraining to “lecture”? But then, such folks would, presumably, be subject to attack for only caring about gays living in their own society.
What I’d really prefer, I guess, is that westerners start dialogues about human rights with former western colonies, imperial subjects, protectorates, etc., by acknowledging that we did some really shitty things to them and that our history is far from a consistently shining example of equality and freedom.
Then I’d like to see a serious pitch made for the importance of secular government as a common standard of civil law to protect the exercise of individuals’ moral choices in a free society. (A point that was made quite effectively by the Tunisian conservative Islamist party leader interviewed in Michael Moore’s new movie Where To Invade Next, by the way.)
Then I’d like to see some teeth in international repudiation of countries choosing not to live up to these considered standards of equality and freedom, along the lines of “You have national sovereignty and you can make whatever laws you choose, but if you choose a repressive and inhumane legal system we have the right as nations to deny you favored-partner status, as tourists to refuse to visit you, as consumers to refuse to purchase your products, etc.” (And it’s not only Muslim nations that I think deserve some repudiation in these contexts, either.)
I don’t disagree the Catholics are bigger and better organized - no doubt about that. But how many Catholics are “really” practicing their religion? Hard to know, but anecdotal evidence suggests it’s far fewer than the number who simply identify as Catholic. People actually “really” practicing jihad is to me, a disturbingly powerful mindset in the context of contemporary civilization. That’s the beguiling aspect setting Islam apart, as I see it.
beguile
[bih-gahyl]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), beguiled, beguiling.
1. to influence by trickery, flattery, etc.; mislead; delude.
2. to take away from by cheating or deceiving (usually followed by of):
to be beguiled of money.
3.
to charm or divert:
a multitude of attractions to beguile the tourist.
4.
to pass (time) pleasantly:
beguiling the long afternoon with a good book.
No. I always say that when I’m dealing with a person who thinks “some one once said” validates a statement. I always say that when I’m dealing with someone who thinks burden of proof doesn’t apply to them. I always say that when I’m dealing with someone who feels they can dismiss any cite that disagrees with them as being biased.
Which in your case means you’ll hear it quite a lot, I agree.
***Some one once said ***was not meant to validate anything, it means that I can remember a conversation but not the author of the remark
*** someone who thinks burden of proof doesn’t apply to them.*** My life is about conversations and meetings where opinions are formed through verbal discussion, It is not always possible to validate a conversation as you would a media article
*** I’m dealing with someone who feels they can dismiss any cite that disagrees with them as being biased.*** I expressed an opinion about the change in the public opinion towards Islam an opinion shared by some Muslim who are brave enough to say Not in my name, and their number is growing
"Hi, we represent your former colonial overlords. We did a lot of shitty things in the past, for which we are profoundly apologetic.
That out of the way - can we interest you in giving up your current form of government and some of your sovereignty? We think some international body is better suited than you to decide such matters as the role of religion in government, and standards of equality and freedom. I’m sure these matters will not be in the least contentious.
Note that this is no reflection on you personally, or a slight on underdeveloped nations generally - we are making the same pitch to places like the US, which I’m sure will be overjoyed at the notion of having some UN bureaucrats dictating to Washington on such matters.
Until the day comes when you, and others, accept this attractive offer, out of politeness and a sense of historical decency, taking into account your quite legitimate sensitivity to our prinicpal’s historic sins, we will refrain from upsetting you by making any adverse comment on your tendency to flog gays to death."
But that has nothing to do with anything I said. Looks like you don’t have a lot of room to criticize others on the grounds of making silly unpersuasive rhetorical points. :dubious:
