patrick.net

Oh man. Violence against women is bad enough, but you would think that the home of your parents would be the one place you'd be safe.

What a horrible story.

Well it certainly wasn't very honorable.

Please people. As Marcus has said thousands of time, we cannot judge other people's culture. This honor killing was a religiously significant event. The family "perceived" the girl as being too westernized, and their perceptions are more important than the girl's life.

People have didn't perceptions than you do. That doesn't make their perceptions wrong, even when it means killing a 17-year-old girl. Her family's faith is different from yours, not worse. Who are you to judge their spiritual beliefs? What are you, some kind of god-damn atheist?

Again, I rest my case.

My belief that judging all spiritual belief as wrong, is twisted around by Dan to be that I advocate satanic rituals or the most evil fundamentalist inspired crimes.

If religion in certain extreme cases can lead evil, then all religion is always evil? Oh, okay I get it (sarcasm symbol here).

This is what it looks like when Dan loses an argument. Not pretty.

Dan8267 says

As Marcus has said thousands of time, we cannot judge other people's culture. This honor killing was a religiously significant event. The family "perceived" the girl as being too westernized, and their perceptions are more important than the girl's life.

People have didn't perceptions than you do. That doesn't make their perceptions wrong, even when it means killing a 17-year-old girl. Her family's faith is different from yours, not worse. Who are you to judge their spiritual beliefs? What are you, some kind of god-damn atheist?

Ruki says

What's the difference between killing her at age 17 as opposed to while she's still in the room,

Depending on when the abortion happens: self-awareness.

marcus says

My belief that judging all spiritual belief as wrong,

All spiritual beliefs are false. Whether or not they are morally wrong is another matter. However, faith and superstition are easily abused by power-hungry people and even in the absence of such abuse often cause irrational and destructive behavior as seen in this murder of a young woman.

marcus says

If religion in certain extreme cases can lead evil, then all religion is always evil?

That is a Straw Man argument. My position is that superstition -- and that includes what you call faith and religion -- is inherently irrational, and irrationality is inherently dangerous especially in the modern age.

Religion is a hierarchical power structure based on lies. As such, religion is in itself an evil whether or not it causes greater evils. Of course, such power structures, being based on deceiving the masses, more often than not leads to evils small or great.

marcus says

(sarcasm symbol here).

Sarcasm without intelligence does not win a debate.

marcus says

This is what it looks like when Dan loses an argument.

Only in your mind does the opposition lose the argument immediately after you speak your first word. Can't wait for the rebuttal?

My turn to cross examine. Marcus, should we Americans respect the cultural and religious beliefs that caused these parents to murder their child? Oh wait, giving a straight answer to that question would take balls. I expect you to either ignore the question or weasel out of giving a straight answer.

Dan8267 says

That doesn't make their perceptions wrong, even when it means killing a 17-year-old girl. Her family's faith is different from yours, not worse. Who are you to judge their spiritual beliefs? What are you, some kind of god-damn atheist?

Dan8267 says

Sarcasm without intelligence does not win a debate.

Dan8267 says

As Marcus has said thousands of time

This was a lie, or a twisting of the truth. I have thousands of dollars for you if you can find even one instance in which I specifically advocated evil in the name of religion. The fact that I won't judge and declare generally that all spirituality is wrong headed is far different from me saying that religion is not in some cases related to evil.

I get it, you have some kind of insane fantadsy that I am going to argue in favor of fundamentalist inspired or rationalized evil.

If you had even a shred of integrity you would acknowledge that whenever our past arguments have gone in this direction, I have said that I take issue with fundamentalists. But even there, I won't declare that all fundamentlist Christians are inherantly evil.

The difference between you and I Dan is that I actually challenge you on specific things you have said (not that I am willing to get in to a point by point debate over your proofs or the semantics behind every empty sub-argument I hear).

But I clearly state my case regarding specific things you have said that I dissagree with.

You run from these and try to say that I approve of specific religious atrocities.

Oh, and if I don't answer your leading question I'm running from some straw man BS. Whatever DAn. These arguments speak for themselves to anyone who cares.

Dan8267 says

Only in your mind does the opposition lose the argument immediately after you speak your first word.

I was referring to this in other thread (and what follows it): marcus says, Broken record,....dead horse...yawn....

Which preceded this by a minute or two.

Dan8267 says

As Marcus has said thousands of time, we cannot judge other people's culture. This honor killing was a religiously significant event. The family "perceived" the girl as being too westernized, and their perceptions are more important than the girl's life.

People have didn't perceptions than you do. That doesn't make their perceptions wrong, even when it means killing a 17-year-old girl. Her family's faith is different from yours, not worse. Who are you to judge their spiritual beliefs? What are you, some kind of god-damn atheist?

If you honestly think that I have ever even implied this, then maybe you're just stupid, rather than reacting to losing an argument. If you aren't embarrassed by this, I certainly can't help you. Bye.

marcus says

I have thousands of dollars for you if you can find even one instance in which I specifically advocated evil in the name of religion.

I never claimed you advocated evil in the name of religion. That's another of your Straw Man arguments.

I claimed you advocate tolerance of the evil done in the name of religion by denouncing criticism of religion for those evils.

marcus says

The fact that I won't judge and declare generally that all spirituality is wrong headed is far different from me saying that religion is not in some cases related to evil.

You have yet to admit that religion is wrong even in some cases such as the murder of this 17-year-old.

Nevertheless, I have never made the argument that one specific incident of religious inspired malice is sufficient to condemn all of religion. That is another of your Straw Man arguments.

I have stated that superstition itself is a minor evil and justified that statement. I have further argued that religion is a greater evil because of the deceptive means by which all religions obtain power, and I have justified that stance as well.

Finally, I have shown a preponderance of evidence that religion frequently and throughout history has lead to many evils great and small. This evidence establishes a long pattern of religion causing death, physical harm, human rights violations, civil rights violations, and oppression. To this day, no one has ever even attempted to refute any of the evidence I have presented in this regard, and rightfully so since the evidence is well-known history.

marcus says

I get it, you have some kind of insane fantadsy that I am going to argue in favor of fundamentalist evil.

No. You have the fantasy that I have the fantasy that... Ah forget it. The point is that the crap that is going on in your mind does not reflect what's going on in mine. Deal with it. You have never understood my arguments because you don't want to understand them. To understand them is to realize that you are wrong on so many levels.

marcus says

I have said that I take issue with fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism is just a blurry splotch in a continuous spectrum of behavior. There is no solid line that separates fundamentalism from less objectionable forms of faith.

marcus says

If you had even a shred of integrity you would acknowledge that whenever our past arguments have gone in this direction, I have said that I take issue with fundamentalists.

I have never denied this or even commented on it, but since you want me to... Sure you might distance yourself from fundamentalist, but that's a far cry to admitting that religion has throughout history and continues today caused immense suffering and death. Nor have you acknowledge that religion, fundamentalist or not, could lead humanity down the path of nuclear war or ecological collapse, both of which are real threats today.

In any case, I have never accused you of promoting fundamentalism. I have accused you of hindering other people's efforts to fight fundamentalism.

marcus says

But even there, I am not declare that all fundamentlist Christians are inherantly evil.

And finally we get to the point. To you it's all about fighting people. To me it's all about fighting bad ideas with good ones.

I have never declared religious people as evil. I declared religion as evil. There's a big difference, but you keep failing to grasp that.

marcus says

The difference between you and I Dan is that I actually challenge you on specific things you have said

No, you ignore what I say and pull Straw Man arguments out of your ass. You then pretend that you have achieved victory for denouncing these Straw Man arguments. You're like the republicans who try to make Obama out to be a communist born in Kenya that wants to take away everyone's guns. You can't win against your opponent, so you hope the audience is dumb enough to believe in your Straw Men are the opponent.

And that is one of the main reasons I do not respect you.

marcus says

(not that I am willing to get in to a point by point debate over your proofs or the semantics behind every empty sub-argument I hear).

This is a perfect example of how you assert victory without making any counter-argument. If the arguments are as empty as you said, then they should be easy to refute. I don't spend much time responding to your posts because they don't require that many neurons to refute.

marcus says

You run from these and try to say that I approve of specific religious atrocities.

Yet another Straw Man.

As clearly stated in my sarcastic post at the top of this thread, what I actually accuse you of is condemning people who have the courage to stand up to religion and culture inspired atrocities. And yes, doing that is wrong. To hinder those who are trying to make the world a better place is to serve evil indirectly. You're the guy who trips the sniper that is trying to assassinate Hitler.

Dan8267 says

My turn to cross examine. Marcus, should we Americans respect the cultural and religious beliefs that caused these parents to murder their child? Oh wait, giving a straight answer to that question would take balls. I expect you to either ignore the question or weasel out of giving a straight answer.

marcus says

Oh, and if I don't answer your leading question I'm running from some straw man BS. Whatever DAn. These arguments speak for themselves
to anyone who cares.

Yep, just like I said, you didn't have the balls to answer the question.

By the way, there is a correct answer to my question. The correct answer is
Hell NO! Of course we shouldn't respect a cultural or religious belief that girls and women should be murdered for being too westernized, i.e., independent. Some cultures are superior to others. A culture that respects the equality of people regardless of gender is superior to a culture that stones women when the men feel they are getting too independent.

The fact that you could not bring yourself to give this obvious and truthful answer is yet another major reason I do not respect you.

marcus says

If you honestly think that I have ever even implied this, then maybe you're just stupid, rather than reacting to losing an argument. If you aren't embarrassed by this, I certainly can't help you. Bye.

Ah, the childish name calling. This is perhaps the biggest reason I have absolutely no respect for you. Whenever a person tries to talk to you like an adult, you resort to childish insults. At least when I insult you it's clever, original, and illustrates why you are worthy of the insult. Your insults are unfounded and often ironically applicable to yourself.

I will concede that your inane postings do serve one legitimate purpose. They allow me to demonstrate unequivocally that I fervently oppose and rebuke stupidity no matter where I find it, on the right or on the left.

Please keep posting so that the social conservatives on this site don't think that I'm picking on them. We get so much insane bullshit from the right, we need people like you to show their are dumb asses with no sense of reality on the left as well.

Does anyone have any proof that any god exist?
Forget it. I know god exist because somebody said they read it in a book.

One thing I never understood about anti choice folks is that they claim to be so pro-pregnancy yet refuse to care for the unborn via free or means tested prenatal health care. This has resulted in the USA having a shameful infant mortality ranking of #34 behind most wealthy countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Then, to add insult to injury, they are against good public school education, healthcare for disadvantaged families, etc. It would be more logical for anti choice folks who follow any logic at all to pay for and encourage abortions for the poor since they don't want to assist in their welfare before they are born or after.

I am strongly pro-choice. Why would a conservative be against abortion? Overpopulation is not a conservative idea at all.

Ruki says

So say those who need a convenient excuse to devalue life.

One day, I'm going to have to write up a thread on abortion. Just been too busy.

In any case, the abortion debate is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Ruki says

Yet Roe gives us carte blanche right to kill the child right up through the third trimester -- which is why no other nation that has legalized abortion allows such a crime to occur.

Wrong.

There is no honor in killing. Life of a person is precious. If those parents are not capable of love, they should not have had children in the first place.

I think the main thing is she refused an arranged marriage.

While some will see only ISLAMISTS here, this could as easily have been a story written about Indians.

In some countries, girls are still seen first as valuable properties to be traded around, not as people.

And as said as it is, who hasn't heard some Western parents that have said:

"I brought you into this world, I'll take you out!"

Parents view children as their property and the fact that she had made it to 18 didn't change their sense of complete ownership rights.

I don't think this culture belongs in America.
Same with the mexican gang, teen breeding culture.
Same with the drug culture.
Same with the baby murdering abortatoium culture.
Same with the no death penalty culture.
Same with the no Second Ammendment culture.
Same with the no God culture.

But, this is not about me. I do wonder how a liberal minded person, who HATES when American's do something, anything, and say it was out of their faith in God .. and those liberals HATE to hear of a child in school praying, mentioning God in a speech, or singing about God at Christmas time .... but, oddly, when a freaky arab murders anyone, in the name of their god, then those same liberal's think everyone should respect the "strong convictions and religious culture" of the murderer. Doesn't that seem weird? It looks like "progressive liberal" means "double standard".

Dan8267 says

In any case, the abortion debate is completely irrelevant to this thread.

nope ... this was a slow abortion that took 17 years. Murder is murder.

Even though I am a strong believer in corporate personhood, I am reluctant to call fetus a person. The unborn is not even capable of taking actions for its own benefits.

elliemae says

17 year old girl was too "westernized" for her parents' taste, so they killed her

In Communist China, they get an early start in the violence against women.

The preferred One Child would be a boy, for the honor of the family and all that.

At least in Communist China they don't waste their time (and money) for birthing and raising the girls.

In the future, they will wonder why their precious only son can't find a mate. Oops, no baby! Sorry, family lineage broken.

I guess things balance themselve.

Peter P says

Even though I am a strong believer in corporate personhood, I am reluctant to call fetus a person. The unborn is not even capable of taking actions for its own benefits.

an interesting point. I am of the opinion that the union of the egg and the sperm creates a NEW cell that will split a set number of times, resulting in a human that has a DNA trail that exactly matches the male and female donors.

The egg dies in a very short time if no sperm comes along.
The sperm dies in a very short time if no egg comes along.
The NEW cell dies after 80 or 90 years if it's lucky.
The NEW cell is life, and can be nothing but the product of the two donors, so I look at the instant the fertile cell splits to be a new life created.

By the way, the donor/host female body reacts to the fertilized egg right away too. Maybe that should be the agreed upon reason for calling a new life a new life?

Bap33 says

Maybe that should be the agreed upon reason for calling a new life a new life?

Yeah but is the new life a new person?

Whether or not, in Communist China if the (One) new life/person is/gonna be a woman, often not a new life/new person worth having.

I am not pro-pick-a-kid. Heck, I don't even like them taking pics and telling folks ahead of time. I'm old school.

Genetic engineering for any life ... flora or fauna ... is not a good idea. Unless they come up with Roaches that eat Blackwidows and Blackwidows that eat Roaches. That would be ok.

they cannot reliably pick the kid before conception. At least, not yet.

But they can pick one unborn ones they eliminate.... an early (pre-natal) start on violence against women.

I do not understand this preference of boys over girls.

Anyway, IMO abortion should not be disallowed because of possible sex picking. This is a dangerous and slippery slope. Groups who are silly to perform this on a cultural basis will have a reduced chance of spreading their genes. In the end, Nature is fair.

probably a last-name-carries on thing? In my nationalities history, before they went all Catholicistic, the middle name was the mom's maiden name. It helped keep cross breeding to a minimum. The Azores are kinda small, so they are really careful.

The mexicans give each kid nine zillion names to cover both sides and track the bloodline .. but, uncles hump their neices an aweful lot in mexican culture. Not sure why. The narrow bloodlines in the backwoodsy areas of mexico have all of the classic birth defect issues, including low I.Q., club hands and feet, hair lip, palsey, and other birth issues. Starts to add up now, dont it?

I wonder what Icelanders do?

they hold mixers for teens and invite Greenland

I do think human societies should encourage more race-mixing for biodiversity's sake.

Peter P says

I do not understand this preference of boys over girls

It is not possible to understand the culture imperatives of a culture that is alien to oneself. It (the behavior) just is, what it is.

No more possible than it is to understand why on the Real Estate Threats, there are some who get off on bragging about their savvy, smart investments, peppering their broadcasted boastings with belittling epithets against those who disagree with them.

I suppose those kinda people are a culture that's alien to me.

Well, I tend to think that categorical imperatives are meta-ethically bad.

I hate Kant.

I consider myself a multiculturalist. But I also believe that all cultural can be reduced to food. Ultimately, you are what you eat. :-)

Peter P says

myself a multiculturalist

Me, too.

It's the Cool and Hip Way in the Cool and Hip Bay Area.

But that's a big difference than (fully immersed) living it or being raised in it or whatever. Without that kind of perspective, even if we "Hipster In" with some superficial exposure to them by living in an Internationalist Place like the Bay Area or London or Vancouver or whatever, other cultures are still alien to us.

[...]

Peter P says

I consider myself a multiculturalist. But I also believe that all cultural can be reduced to food. Ultimately, you are what you eat. :-)

guess I do like Asian foods... gave up on moms German Meatloaf and 'cruts.

Peter P says

I do think human societies should encourage more race-mixing for biodiversity's sake.

Only Caucasians think that way, you will find more roadblocks from Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners and Indian Natives.... they have no wish to dilute their bloodline and culture.

gayness is not real popular in those groups either

Bap33 says

gayness is not real popular in those groups either

We should boycott humus.

"Chick pea puree"

see how it sounds the same?

Vicente says

I think the main thing is she refused an arranged marriage.

While some will see only ISLAMISTS here, this could as easily have been a story written about Indians.

In some countries, girls are still seen first as valuable properties to be traded around, not as people.

And as said as it is, who hasn't heard some Western parents that have said:

"I brought you into this world, I'll take you out!"

Parents view children as their property and the fact that she had made it to 18 didn't change their sense of complete ownership rights.

“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

Please don't confuse Indians in this debate. Honor killings are not endemic in Indian (Hindu) society. There is a problem with backward, ignorant people with cross caste relationships but with education this is being stamped out.

Every society has it's ignorant people but it depends on whether the cultural diasphora accepts this or speaks out against it.

I'll preempt the usual caste curry and cows comment by saying that before throwing those stones at Hindus about caste violence, there have been no genocides, witch hunts , inquisitions associated with the faith. If the worst is caste violence by illiterate , backward , ignorant people struggling to survive then there is no comparison with lynchin's of black folk in a prosperous superpower or ethnic cleansing of all non muslims in muslim dominated countries pakistan and bangladesh.

thomaswong.1986 says

they have no wish to dilute their bloodline and culture.

It is understandable that powerful families (like the Medici) would want a "bloodline." I just find it amusing that regular families care things like that. I wonder if they have a coat of arms too? :-)

Dan8267 says

Please people. As Marcus has said thousands of time, we cannot judge other people's culture. This honor killing was a religiously significant event. The family "perceived" the girl as being too westernized, and their perceptions are more important than the girl's life.

Of course we we free to judge anything we want. We just cannot pass out sentences. :-)

Religious activities are not above the law. For example, human sacrifice is ILLEGAL even if the "lamb" gives consent.