**HorseloverFat ** never said “all muslims everywhere will throw acid on a woman who has any schooling”. Your attempts to insinuate that he said that are disrespectful to all Fat Horse Lovers everywhere. (Or would that be Horse Fat Lovers? Love Horse Fatters?)
He correctly said that in some Muslim countries, some women and girls have been struck with acids (and presumably bases) for not complying with the local interpretation of religious doctrines, i.e. females should wear a veil in public and should not attend or teach school. He just didn’t explicitly phrase it using the word “some” repeatedly.
Joe Frickin Friday said:
Strong chemicals are much more available.
Chemical burns are more permanent disfigurement than some kinds like striking the face. Burns leave a more hideous result.
Someone did it, and it created a trend that has become a cultural pattern.
Actually, I wasn’t attempting to be a smartass and believe it or not I thought I was being respectful when I posted above, rather than snarling from a soapbox. Which goes to the point that it is easy to misinterpret the written word without outside context.
Nowhere did you write “only” or “all”, but also nowhere did you write “some.” The education thing is actually fairly rare in the Muslim world, the issues of hijabs and modesty ( not necessarily veils per se ) less so. But the latter isn’t exceedingly common either. Like I said it is easy to misinterpret your post as being very broad and, no offense, but I don’t really remember you as a poster. I see you have been here about as long as I have, but either you have changed your name, you post rarely or we by happenstance just haven’t interacted much. So not really knowing you even as a poster, I wasn’t sure what you actually meant. Honestly. And this is GQ, where it is best to keep things as factual as possible, including for the benefit of lurkers.
So no, I wasn’t trying to be PC, I was trying to correct a very possibly factually incorrect statement or at least one that could be easily seen as factually incorrect. I had no issue with xnylder’s post at all, which was simultaneous with your own.
I didn’t see anything that could be as easily misinterpreted in the comments about India.
Actually he didn’t use the word “some” at all :). Once would have been fine.
You don’t see the possibility of honest, reasonable ( not agenda-driven, not hypersensitive ) misinterpretation of his comments?
Maybe not, I dunno. Maybe I AM just hypersensitive and needlessly pedantic. I’ve been accused of worse, I guess ;).
Tamerlane, I agree with you that the word some is needed to convey what **Horselover Fat actually intended. When some is omitted, this sentence becomes inaccurate: “In Muslim countries its(sic) used against unveiled women or girls who dare go to school.”
Horselover Fat, I’m sure that you would not want to be misleading in General Questions. I don’t think that anyone expects perfection, but it is reasonable to clarify what another poster intends.
I saw a documentary recently about a jeanlous man who threw acid into the face of his attractive girlfriend and blinded her. Several years passed and she ended up marrying the guy. It just made my skin crawl. All I can remember is that her first name is Linda.
My mum’s friend in Scotland used to carry a glass jar of some type of acid in her purse for safety.
Once while walking from Greenock to Gourock she was accosted by a couple of men in a poorly lit area. It was clear to her they wanted try something so she pulled the jar out and took the cap off before they got too close and told them it was acid. If they tried anything they’d have got a facefull she said. They quickly turned and went on their way. Mum said she carried that jar for years!
Acid attacks are extremely popular in Cambodia. I started this thread awhile back about the graphic novel Shake Girl, the true story of a lovely young lady who was disfigured in this manner by a jealous wife.
Almost unheard of in Thailand and other regional countries. Dunno why they’ve taken hold so strongly in Cambodia.
From 2007-2008 roughly 2/3 of acid victims were women, 1/3 men.
Since 2002 acid attacks may be declining.
In 2008 more than half of attacks on men and women were due to “land/property/money dispute”
Folks might also consider that there was a sensationalized wave of “vitriol” attacks in England and Europe in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s. IIRC there is at least one or two Sherlock Holmes stories where vitriol burns are a prominent plot device.
Crazy Love, her name is Linda Riss. This thread also made me thing of this case, since it happened in the US. While it may be more common in other parts of the world, it’s not unheard of here, either, and happens for many of the same reasons - jealousy, the desire to posess a woman or destroy her for other men, etc.
Unfortunately, in this case, it worked - she was engaged to someone else at the time of the attack, and they broke up fairly soon after.
Sure, if one or two people post the comment, maybe phrased as a question for clarification. “Excuse me, did you really intend to be saying all muslims in all muslim countries always throw acid on every woman not wearing a veil?”
But when an accusation is made that he is wrong, and then he clarifies what he meant, and then more people keep saying that he is wrong, then I think there’s something going on besides just an honest, reasonable misinterpretation.
There seemed to me to be an unwarranted pile on. I certainly understood what he meant, complete with all the missing "some"s.
Zoe said:
Do you really think that sentence should be read:
“In [all] Muslim countries its(sic) used against [all] unveiled women or [all] girls who dare go to school.” ?
if a society is sufficiently lawless to have men do this to women without serious fear of legal retribution, what is to stop male relatives/friends of the victim to go disfigure or otherwise violently damage the offender or his relatives? Or are the victims precisely those who are known to have nobody to stand up for them?
Interestingly, it is the villian who is the victim of a vitriol attack (albeit by one of his former victims, who saves Sherlock Holmes by throwing vitriol in the villian’s face just as the villian was about to shoot Holmes - Dr. Watson saves the villian’s life but not his features).
In the Granta TV version, this is nicely shown indirectly; Kitty throws the vitriol on the evil Baron (he’s previously thrown vitriol on her so this is apt revenge); you don’t see the effect on him, you just see the effect of the chemical on a portrait of his, also splashed in the attack …
It seems that way to me too. Then again, I’ve been libeled of being “anti-Muslim” on this message board more than once, thanks to posts where I dared to object to the treatment of women in Muslim countries as second-class citizens or chattel, as well as the treatment of LGBT folks in said countries, so obviously my opinion means nothing.
In his fourth post. Or to be more accurate he clears up his potentially non-factual comment in his fourth post. I hate to be Parsey McParserson here, but just to be clear…
1rst post - tendentious comment.
2nd - he says it is fair to mention Islam. No argument from me, it is, but that’s not what I objected to in his first post.
3rd - Repeats his original comment and says he didn’t mean ALL acid attacks are due to Islam. Sure - but that’s still not what I was objecting to. I never thought he said that either.
4th - Notes ( amidst much annoyance ) that he did not intend to mean “all Muslims” did such. That was my objection.
Far as I could tell, he might have been and sadly, I did not.
Maybe. I can only speak for myself. Frankly, I thought I was pretty polite.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen such things before - there is a lot of ignorance in the world. So, yes, I consider it a reasonable interpretation. In fact, to be 100% honest, my first assumption is that is exactly what he meant, which maybe speaks to an intrinsic lack of faith in my fellow man. My second impulse was to give the benefit of the doubt, which I did.
Heck, I would have nitpicked that comment had it been anyone, even someone I knew, knew better.
You know better than that. Or if you don’t, you should.
OK, let’s dial it back a bit and try to keep this thread civil. If you have a problem with another poster’s remarks, please report it and let the moderators deal with it.
Only problem is, with the acid, it might keep eating. :eek:
code_grey said:
The family members are the ones who do it? The family members agree she deserved it?
Rereading the thread, I see that HorseLoverFat did get a bit testy early. even sven’s comment is couched in neutral enough terms that indicate the interpretation could be on the reader’s part. His response is a little high-handed.
Tamerlane said:
But that was what even sven objected to, and he was the only response at that time.
RickJay’s objection is that it isn’t only Muslims, and in fact appears to be linked to cultures in a geography rather than one religion.
It’s only then that you comment on the other half of the complaint.
Also, I wasn’t necessarily pointing at you for being unfair, just my original take on the gist of the responses as a whole.
priostart said:
That seems more awkward than a taser or pepper spray, and has much more serious consequences if you get your acid used against you, or if something disturbs your aim and you get yourself.
Slight hijack, but one unfortunate Iranian woman Ameneh Bahrami, was blinded by a marriage suitor and won a judgement for him also to be blinded under the Sharia principle of Qisas. This was back in February with the sentence to be carried out in April last year. Google fails to find out whether this took place. Does anyone know whether the sentence was carried out?
