"It's because for them adultery is worse than murder – but not all kinds of adultery: an adulterous man might not even be imprisoned but an adulterous women is the end of the world for them. It's because I'm in a country where its women do not have the right to divorce their husbands and are deprived of their basic rights."...
"When the judge handed down my sentence, I even didn't realise I'm supposed to be stoned to death because I didn't know what 'rajam' means. They asked me to sign my sentence which I did, then I went back to the prison and my cellmates told me that I was going to be stoned to death and I instantly fainted."...
"They wanted to get rid of my lawyer so that they can easily accuse me of whatever they want without having him to speak out. If it was not for his attempts, I would have been stoned to death by now."
August 7, 2010
"The answer is quite simple, it's because I'm a woman, it's because they think they can do anything to women in this country."
The woman is Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. The country, Iran.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
244 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 244 of 244Cedarford, I hesitate to attempt to engage you in a conversation, as I suspect that we'll ultimately drill down to the root cause of all human suffering, namely, ZOG (the Zionist Occupational Government), and how they staged the moon landing and fixed the '75 and '76 World Series to allow the Reds to win.
Roswell! The truth is out there!
But let's try:
No, Iraq was no cakewalk. But what we have right now, even though no one wants to admit it, looks an awful lot like victory to me.
They hold free elections. Uday hasn't dipped anyone in a vat of acid in a while. They're going to recover and they'll be an outpost of freedom in the middle east, with just a minimal continued presence there by us (much smaller than we had in Germany or Japan following WWII).
Iran wouldn't be a cakewalk either. But it's not insurmountable. If we have to, nuke the sons-of-bitches.
That will get Syria's attention.
But let me ask you a question: In your philosophy, is there ever a justification for war, other than the initiating nation's self-interest?
Suppose Iran had a minority population of 6 million white, blue-eyed, blond-haired people, and they were going to gas and burn them. Would this justify us in declaring war? Just hypothetically?
somefeller said: "The chickenhawk argument is the argument that people who support a war should be willing to fight in that war or be actually signing up to serve in it. That's a silly argument..."
But then he said: "...it's easy to be an online hawk...if you are an American citizen who isn't deciding matters of state."
Oh, well, that's different then. You're not saying that I'm unqualified to comment on the matter because I'm not in the military; you're saying that I'm unqualified because I'm not a member of the government.
OK then.
You know, I think I see your point. It's much easier for me to be an online hawk, then it is for you to be an online pussy. I mean, it must take a lot of effort, and courage, just for you to get up in the morning, and look at yourself in the mirror.
And: "America's goal is to be the friend of liberty everywhere, but..."
But that liberty isn't worth any actual cost. Just sanctions, and harsh letters of condemnation.
And with that, I'm off to bed. Good night, somefeller, Beth, and Cedarford.
One closing thought: Beth, somefeller, consider the fact that you find yourselves in complete agreement with... Cedarford. What has led you to such a place?
And Cedarford: Consider the fact that you find yourself in complete agreement with somefeller and Beth. I'm pretty sure they're both Jews. That little pointy symbol that Beth uses for her avatar -- I'm pretty sure that's a Jew spear, that they use to impale Christian babies.
Saint Croix said:
Romans killed their babies. All the time. Adultery just means you have another baby to kill. […] Sexually free societies create babies. Sex makes babies. Sexually free societies practice infanticide, or abortion, or both.
My earlier posting was in reply to Eric's assertion that “virtually every culture” has much the same “strong evolutionary bias against cuckoldry” — which I showed was not the case.
In response to that, Saint Croix now proclaims the foregoing. Well, guess what? In the first place, in an age when there was no reliable contraception, infanticide was ubiquitous nearly worldwide in antiquity.
As anthropologist Laila Williamson put it:
“Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule.”
Beyond that, one should note that ancient Greece and Rome, for instance, were not sexually free societies!
As Paul Veyne writes elsewhere in A History of Private Life:
“[I]ncoherences and baffling limitations are found in every century. In Greco-Roman culture we find them associated with another pleasure: love. If any aspect of ancient life has been distorted by legend, this is it. It is widely but mistakenly believed that antiquity was a Garden of Eden from which repression was banished, Christianity having yet to insinuate the worm of sin into the forbidden fruit. Actually, the pagans were paralyzed by prohibitions.” [emphasis added]
Veyne then goes on at some length (too long to quote) to delve into the various ways that this was true. Basically, the ancient pagan Greco-Romans believed (whether they acted thus all the time is another matter, just as with our own beliefs), but they believed that sex was not for enjoyment but was for procreation only. Christianity after it came into existence thereupon simply picked up that idea, clothed it in somewhat different ideological clothes, and ran with it.
References:
Laila Williamson, “Infanticide: an Anthropological Analysis,” Infanticide and the Value of Life, edited by Marvin Kohl, Prometheus Books, New York, 1978; pp. 61-75.
Paul Veyne, Chapter 1: “The Roman Empire,” Volume I: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, edited by Paul Veyne, translated by Arthur Goldhammer, A History of Private Life, the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987; pp. 202-203.
Oh, well, that's different then. You're not saying that I'm unqualified to comment on the matter because I'm not in the military; you're saying that I'm unqualified because I'm not a member of the government.
No, that's not what I said. Let's look at my comment: What I was saying was that it's easy to be an online hawk and disparage others for stating their opposition to the Iranian regime in other ways, when both cost about the same if you are an American citizen who isn't deciding matters of state.
Since you seem to have trouble understanding the point, I'll explain. It costs about the same to take either position if you aren't actually having to bear the responsibilities for that decision, which is to say it costs nothing. In other words, it's silly to claim that being an online hawk is tougher and braver than being an online dove (though that term many not be appropriate here, maybe the term should be the ungainly one of online war-skeptic), and vice-versa, since both aren't exactly incurring risk for the person making the statement.
You know, I think I see your point. It's much easier for me to be an online hawk, then it is for you to be an online pussy. I mean, it must take a lot of effort, and courage, just for you to get up in the morning, and look at yourself in the mirror.
Oh, yeah, I'm an online pussy, while you are just a total badass. The internet tough guy pays a visit. I'm laughing at you and going to bed.
I kind of see Crack's point back at 6:08.
BTW Michael McNeil
I was away when you posted an answer to my question on Hitchens tread.
I thanked you properly back there.
I also posted a (or my) response to Pastafarian's curiosity(?) with Althouse's "tone" on her Hitchens post.
Cousin Bob wrote:
You know, Jesus didn't argue how terrible stoning was, and why don't we all light candles for an International Women's Vigil Against Nasty Sexist Bastards.
No, He raised the bar, big time, in John 8:
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Those are some nice words. But you know what happens when you prostelytise in many Muslim countries. Try saying that over there when they'er about to stone an adulteress and see what happens.
"Off with his head!"
bago20 wrote:
Just came across this headline from Feb, 2009:
"Israel, Iran, Pakistan World's Least Popular Nations"
Well you have to understand, Muslims do get a vote and they make up a large percentage of world pop. Since 99.9% (at least in the Muslim countries - I'll assume for arguments sake that the tolerant muslims simply are against zionism) think the jews should be driven into the sea. Then of course their are the anti samites who think the zionists control the world (ie. nazis, pat buchanan(?) Cedarford. And finally, their are the liberals (who strangely enough remove Iran from the list and add AmeriKKKa. Well they did back when Boosh was in charge. Now they just vote Israel. You know, because of multiculturalism and all. Can't judge those other cultures. Except those damn zionists).
A quote from Tigerhawk:
“It is a measure of the power of narrative that we publicly grieve more for the deaths of our enemies than those of our allies in a war that is now fading quickly from human memory.”
Uh-huh. Y'all know this American and what I've endured - a death struggle with madness, divorce, financial loss, a triple murder - and still many will use the wound to hold salt. But you read a story about an Iranian woman you don't know jack about, except she fucked over her family before a regime you know is barbaric and threatening to wipe our allies off the map, and your hearts fucking bleed over everything.
Oh, how you wish black people from the ghetto would try to straighten up and fly right, don't you? Sure you do. You, who identified enough with evil (and dickless men) to make homicidal maniacs like Bonnie & Clyde into baby boomer folk heroes. You, who have never embarrassed Bill and Hillary "there are worse things than adultery" Clinton (like the issue was them and not Monica) for what they did to what was basically an innocent - or any other woman, no matter how loudly they said he did this or that - including rape. Yea, you know right from wrong enough to lecture, don't you?
You're pathetic deviant hypocrites who want absolution for taking several generations down the rabbit hole to meet the Red Queen:
"Off with the heads of anyone who says take responsibility!"
Listen, instead of wasting your breath on this veteran who had to go to Iran during the Hostage Crisis (and lost friends there) you'd do better to be honest about who YOU are and send your boomer anthem to that bitch in Iran:
"Hey, do not feel so all alone - Ehhhhhverybody must get stoned!"
@Beth, sunsong, etc...
I'm not being obtuse. I'm asking a very simple question:
If the abolition of female subjugation in Muslim countries is, like the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, a moral imperative, then how do you propose to follow through on it without resorting to massive violence?
Really. It's a fair question.
If you don't think it is a moral imperative to abolish the subjugation of women in all societies and cultures, then, really, just say so.
@sunsong in particular:
So you agree with Karl Marx that violence is necessary for changing soceity?
No difference on the far left or the far right about the necessity (in fact the *only* possible solution) of violence, right?
As regards Marx and violence as a driver for societal evolution? Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Once again, I ask you: Can you show me a significant human cultural or societal change that was brought about without violence or the credible threat of violence? This isn't a right or left thing. This is an acknowledged fact of human history. Please show me examples. I would really like to be proven wrong on this.
Until then, you have no argument, and as such, you are only capable of spewing invective at your betters.
Chef Mojo,
Once again, I ask you: Can you show me a significant human cultural or societal change that was brought about without violence or the credible threat of violence? This isn't a right or left thing. This is an acknowledged fact of human history. Please show me examples. I would really like to be proven wrong on this.
There is Martin Luther King and his inspiration, Ghandi. There is the example of the Soviet Union and Yeltzin standing on the tank - and then the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And what of German re-unification and the Berlin Wall coming down?
My point on this thread is that the far left and the far right both advocate violence as the means to bring about change in society. The extremes are more similar to each other than to the rest of us, imo.
Crack,
Stop whining. Stop assuming you know fuckall about anyone else on this thread.
Seriously, do you actually think before these little verbal ejaculations of yours? Do you see how you think everyone knows about your made-up personal stories and how you know the character and history of any random person on the internet? Here's a big clue for you to grab once you put your little i-wang down for a minute or thirty: you don't.
It's called magical thinking dude, and it's what's rotting your brain.
No one gives a fuck that you're black. Not many more give a fuck about you. Once you come to grips with that, you can start to get over your neuroses.
@sunsong:
There is Martin Luther King and his inspiration, Ghandi.
The concept of nonviolent protest is a myth. Behind King and Ghandi was the credible threat of mass uprisings should their aims fall short. These two men did not operate within a vacuum, but within the context of competing factions and interests. King had a counterpoint in Malcolm X, who explicitly threatened violence. The two existed on the same plane, along with other black revolutionaries who instigated violence in numerous occasions. To say that King's movement did not benefit from the fruits of that violence is disingenuous at best. The same can be said of Ghandi, who benefited from the violence of his more strident anti colonial colleagues. This is a condition that can be seen in the near perpetual state of war between India and Pakistan.
There is the example of the Soviet Union and Yeltzin standing on the tank - and then the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Yeltzin standing on a tank, with the explicit threat of turning the tools of the state against the state. He carried through on that threat, turning the tanks on the Duma. That seems to reinforce my argument, not yours.
And what of German re-unification and the Berlin Wall coming down?
I really can't believe the examples you're throwing out, sunsong!
Really, man. Think about this for a minute. The Cold War. Operative word? "War."
But I digress.
The Wall came down because the Soviet regime in Russia had been neutralized by - yep! you got it - the use of, or credible threat of violence. The Soviets had been weakened by the - wait for it! - credible threat of violence presented by the United States within the context of the Cold War. In fact, we materially supported (credible threat, again.) the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation, which was one of the final nails in the communist regime.
What? You think that one day the Wall up and decided to fall down on its own? When East Germany saw that the Soviet Union had been emasculated, what else could they do? They couldn't stand against the implied threat of violence from a huge majority of their population, and simply got the hell out of the way.
Sunsong? Peace studies is bogus and bullshit. Violence is the answer, no matter how you wish it otherwise.
Chef Mojo,
We disagree. I think that what is bogus is your analysis. It was actually the absence of violence that touched people with King and with Ghandi. It was Yeltzin's courage that turned things around, and the Soviet Satelites were freed without violence. And it is really laughable to claim that West Germany would use force.
Peace is better than war. That's just a truth.
Violence is the answer, no matter how you wish it otherwise.
Is that really what you want to stand for in life?
@sunsong:
Is that really what you want to stand for in life?
It's not a matter of what I want to stand for in life. Life is what it is. Violence is the rule. It simply doesn't matter that peace is "better" than war. What matters is that peace is the exception, and not the rule of the human condition. You also seem quite unwilling to connect the two concepts I've presented: The use of violence and the credible threat of violence. Read my previous comment again. The historic dynamic is supported by my argument, not yours. Regardless of how you feel about your precious code of "nonviolence," it has always been backed up with the use of, or explicit threat of violence. This is something that you cannot argue against, however much you wish to.
That you are willfully ignorant of the complexity of history, and see history through the prism of wishful thinking and trite emotion betrays you for the neophyte that you are.
@sunsong:
Be that as it may, you still have not addressed my central question to any extent:
If the abolition of female subjugation in Muslim countries is, like the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, a moral imperative, then how do you propose to follow through on it without resorting to massive violence?
C'mon, man! Give it a shot! Get that lefty brain working! I'm really interested in how the left approaches this question.
At one time, abolitionists were willing to commit the might of nations to the use of extreme violence to achieve a change in society and culture.
Now? Not so much. They lay curled up and mewling like a litter of kittens about to be stuffed in a sack with rocks and tossed into a pond.
At least the kittens aren't willfully ignorant.
Peace is better than war. That's just a truth.
Unless you're in one of Saddam Hussein's rape rooms. The Christian call to pacifism also requires you to confront evil all the time. You have a moral duty to stand between Saddam and his victims. Christianity, if taken all the way, leads to becoming a Christian martyr.
Neither the left nor the right wants to follow Christ all the way. Right-wingers skip all that pacifism stuff in the Bible and arm themselves when they confront Saddam, or people like him.
Liberals quote the pacifism stuff, but then they lie lie lie about evil in the world. They make movies about how peaceful Iraq was under Saddam. "The little children were flying kites." Liberals in our country can afford to be glibly pacifist, because the U.S. military protects them. Period. And pacifists who don't own any guns, when trouble comes, what do you do? Call 911, and hope big men with guns come to your rescue. So much for your belief in non-violence.
Peace is, of course, better than war. But do not be glib about peace in Cuba, peace in the Soviet Union, peace in Cambodia, peace in Iran, peace in Iraq. You're bearing false witness and you know it.
Would you like to live in a society without a police force? It's not enough to spout pacifist rhetoric. If you follow Christ all the way you will suffer violently and painfully. Are you ready for that? Pacifism is not flowers and buttercups. It's rape victim and bullet in the head.
Women are peace and men are war. Peace needs to soothe war. War needs to defend peace. Sometimes war declares war on peace. And peace is in trouble, real trouble. But then war steps in, between war and peace. And war says, "I'm not messing with you, war. I just want to fuck up peace a little." And war says, "Fuck you, war. I'm defending peace." And war declares war on war. And after war gets his ass handed to him on a hat, war is like "Oh fuck, oh shit, peace! Peace!" And war says, "Fuckin' A, peace. Peace is awesome." And peace is standing there all smug, going, "I told you, I told you. Why don't you listen to me?" And war says, "I listen. What the fuck do you think I'm doing? I'm defending you." And peace says, "You're using war!" And war says, "Fuckin' A." And peace says, "War is wrong." And war says, "Don't be so cranky." And peace says, "War is wrong! War is wrong!" And war says, "You're not being peaceful." And peace says, "What the fuck do you know about peace?" And war says, "It's good. I like peace. What do you know about war?" And peace says, "I hate it! War sucks!" And war says, "I know." And war starts feeling sorry for himself and peace has to give him a hug.
Cousin Bob: Jesus, Angelyne, yer turnin' into a conservative Ritmo.
And I thought you were hot there for about 5 minutes.
Looks like you ARE Ritmo...
Yes. I am. But don't be telling me you didn't think Ritmo was hot.
Pastafarian: "[...blah blah blah mission accomplished, Iraq is just like Japan and Germany...]
Iran wouldn't be a cakewalk either. But it's not insurmountable. If we have to, nuke the sons-of-bitches.
That will get Syria's attention."
You are completely insane.
"But let me ask you a question: In your philosophy, is there ever a justification for war, other than the initiating nation's self-interest?"
Let me ask you: in your philosophy, is there any attainable political good, among any people anywhere on earth, that you don't think it's some American's responsibility to go get himself killed to give it to them? (Or at least shackle his own grandchildren with unfathomable debt to give it to them? In case you haven't noticed, Pasta, putting all moral considerations aside, there is no money.
"Suppose Iran had a minority population of 6 million white, blue-eyed, blond-haired people, and they were going to gas and burn them. Would this justify us in declaring war? Just hypothetically?"
Congratulations. You have just hit a new low in playing the race card.
Chef Mojo,
If you honestly believe that there was a credible threat of force and that that was the reason LBJ and the Congress passed the Civil Rights Act - you are deluding yourself. Malcom X simply showed how amazing Martin Luther King really was. All my examples stand :-)
And here are some more:
The vote for women. The advances in Medcine and technology that have resulted in increased longevity - something that will impact society in ways that are even now not understood. The internet, cell phones etc have had and will continue to have amazing impact. Equal rights for gays.
Perception is a choice - not a fact. People see what they want to see. If you *stand* for violence - it is because you want to and choose to. Are you really sure that it what you want to stand for in this life?
Consider, rather than that violence is the answer - consider that violence and the willingness to harm others - is a problem: a presing problem.
GMay,
If you mattered to me, I'd address you more but you don't. You know nothing, and the fact I get on your nerves makes me happy (See? I can get happy!) I told you:
You're human scum, and in cases like yours, I'm delighted in joining shits like you in saying my least favorite phrase in the world:
"I don't care."
Now go fuck with someone who gives a shit.
Sunsong,
"Consider, rather than that violence is the answer - consider that violence and the willingness to harm others - is a problem: a presing problem."
Bullshit. If you don't learn to use violence then others will kill you. It's that simple. I've got a body full of scars and stab wounds from my innocent "let's be friends" youth.
That shit stopped the first day I fought two brothers who had attacked me, whacking one with a paint roller and knocking the *fuck* out of the other one with my fist. I can still remember looking at my balled-up fist, curiously, and thinking "I've got a rock on the end of my arm" (everyone else, who were used to seeing get it, were in shock by my power as well) and that was that:
Few have ever fucked with me again.
Don't knock violence, Sunsong, stand up against wrong.
Sunsong: Consider, rather than that violence is the answer - consider that violence and the willingness to harm others - is a problem: a presing problem.
So I take it that if you were attacked on the street, or subjected to a home invasion by armed robbers, you wouldn't dial 911. Because, after all, the police are going to deal with your attackers with either violence or the credible threat of violence. So dialing 911 would be promoting violence.
P.S., Sunsong, so I take it you're cool with your hero Gandhi's advice to the Jews (and everybody else in Europe, for that matter), about they should have responded to the Nazis?
Not that I'm expecting anything resembling a to-the-point answer. Better men than I keep trying and failing at that.
Ghandi's advice to the Jews is pretty much what we did in Burma. Eventually the killing will stop, at least for a while, because those doing the killing will tire of it or else nearly everyone they want to kill is dead.
The "non violent" solution seems to be an international war crimes court where the leaders of conflicts gone cold are hauled in for decade long inquisitions where nations who sat on their asses while untold innocents were slaughtered act all lofty as they condemn the criminals.
I consider this obscene.
A theft or murder happens quickly but we still attempt to respond if given any warning at all.
But sitting back and watching, making disapproving noises, while slaughter goes on for *years* ought to either make prosecution by the spectators off-limits or else land the spectators in court for allowing it.
And no, I'm not saying that we *must* respond to any given thing with force.
Lets just be honest about our culpability. Lets just reject the comforting fiction that we are innocent of the blood shed.
Lets be honest when we chose not to act, honest about our choices and honest about our limitations. We certainly can't prevent all of the injustice in the world and most absolutely we should not attempt to prevent all of the injustice in the world.
But lets be clear... the killing (to the extent it stopped or at least dropped off the world radar) in Burma stopped only because everyone opposing the government was dead. The international "fuss" over it, the moaning and fainting, did absolutely nothing to save even a single life.
And that's pretty standard for any place and any conflict in the world.
It could be that we can do something to influence Iran that is short of an invasion, something political, but it will probably be tangential to stoning women or hanging gays and it will *probably* be offensive to the "violence is not the answer" folks because it will be forceful and rather rude and will offend the Iranian leadership.
Ritzy said: "...in your philosophy, is there any attainable political good, among any people anywhere on earth, that you don't think it's some American's responsibility to go get himself killed to give it to them?"
That's a logical fallacy of the simplest type, Ritzy.
All tigers have stripes. But not all striped things are tigers.
Iran's ruling regime is oppressive, and without this regime bottling them up in the 7th century, Iran could contribute quite a bit to the world. They're a well-educated nation of over 70 million people sitting on big natural resources. I see practical advantages to dismantling this regime, in addition to humanitarian reasons.
Does that mean that I'm also in favor of invading Venezuela tomorrow? No. Venezuela doesn't stone women and hang homosexuals and train terrorists (at least not as successfully as Iran has).
And for the life of me, I can't think of a single regime that's been toppled because someone signed a petition or issued a harsh letter of condemnation.
But I'm insane, so maybe it's happened and I'm just too demented to realize it.
Ritzy said: "putting all moral considerations aside, there is no money."
Maybe we should spend less paying off Obama's supporters, extending their unemployment benefits into perpetuity and bailing out the UAW so that they can "earn" $40 per hour by sitting on their lazy asses playing cards. Then we might have more money to keep human beings from butchering one another, and we wouldn't have to put all moral considerations aside.
And: "Congratulations. You have just hit a new low in playing the race card."
What? Huh?
I was crafting a hypothetical to appeal to Cedarford, resident white supremacist and rabid antisemite. It has him so flummoxed that he doesn't know how to respond, apparently.
He's your ally in this argument, by the way. You two agree on every point.
Congratulations on that.
somefeller said: "The internet tough guy pays a visit."
What the hell?! How did you get that photo of me? Is there a hidden camera here in my office?
Seriously, though -- I think we're just talking past each other here. I'm not accusing you of cowardice for opposing immediate war with Iran. But I think that any suggested solution that falls short of military force will be the same as doing nothing at all.
Which is fine, I suppose, if it's acceptable for a regime to stone women and hang homosexuals. It's just a matter of how much of that sort of shit we want to tolerate -- to allow, really, since it's within our capability to stop it. Yes, it would cost money, and American lives.
But if you ask Marines, I bet that 99% would say that they're perfectly willing to lay down their lives in a fight to free an oppressed people. And it's an all-volunteer force.
And I don't find the argument that their culture of stonings and hangings can't be changed by mere force compelling. Japan once had a warrior culture -- now, not so much. Germany once made it a regular habbit to invade France every couple of decades. The people of the confederacy once had a pretty deeply ingrained tendency to enslave men. All of these things were changed through force, and could only have been changed through force.
@sunsong:
And here are some more:
The vote for women. The advances in Medcine and technology that have resulted in increased longevity - something that will impact society in ways that are even now not understood. The internet, cell phones etc have had and will continue to have amazing impact. Equal rights for gays.
You're just not getting it.
What are laws?
Laws are a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions.
The most effective institutional enforcement is through the credible threat of punishment and the credible threat of violence, or the carrying out of violence.
We obey laws because we are conditioned to do so with the threat of consequences hanging over our head. This is the great underpinning of civilized culture.
Every example you cite is backed by force of law, which, in turn, implies a threat for breaking that law. Without the threat of enforcement, either through punishment, violence or a combination of the two, law ceases to have meaning. This too is a fact of human history.
It all comes down to violence or the credible threat of violence.
Your "perceptions" argument is bullshit of the purest ray serene. Reality is or it isn't. Perception does not always reflect reality. You say I "choose" to believe that violence is the way of things. Nothing could be further from the truth, having had extreme violence inflicted on me in my lifetime. I abhor violence, but I will not hesitate to resort to it to protect myself or my loved ones. (To me, it's not enough to call 911. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away. I have absolutely no faith in law enforcement being able to protect me.) Violence simply is. It is a fact of life.
Look, sunsong: You may wish to lead a life of peaceful contemplation, and believe that peace would work if only everybody shut their eyes real tight and just believed enough in it. That's not how it happens in the real world. As Orwell stated, " "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf"
Chef Mojo,
Every example you cite is backed by force of law, which, in turn, implies a threat for breaking that law.
That is just not true. There was no violence or threat of force or law that caused advances in medicine. Things like vaccines, the understanding of the importance of hygiene, MRI's, ultrasound technology - none of these came about because of the threat of force or law. Neither did the internet or cell phones - which have will continue to change the world.
The invention of the printing press way back when is another example - it was not created because of violence. Cars, planes, household appliances - which have helped people immensely were not created because of the threat of force.
What you are claiming here is just not true.
If violence and cruelty, punitive measure and vengence worked - they would have worked by now :-)
I think it was Moses who said:
"violence only begets more violence"
I do agree with you that government is force. That is why I advocate for the least of amount of government possible. It was Henry David Thoreau who said:
"That government is best which governs least" – Henry David Thoreau
But he also understood that perception is a choice - not a fact:
"It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see." -Henry David Thoreau
You are indeed responsible for what you see and how you look at things.
I can understand wanting to live in a society that is safe - but the ends do not justify the means.
What is the least amount of force - of violence that is required?
Another exmple of an event that changed history and was not caused by violence by when George Washington stepped down from the presidency. He didn't have to - he chose to. It is probably one of the most remarkable events in modern history. President Washington was the first to warn of foreign entangelments.
Which brings me to war :-)
I am one who thinks we are overburdened with debt and deficits and that war is too costly. I note that some who can speak quite eloquently about keeping their own money and not being overly taxed and not creating a dependency culture etc etc - are just fine with spending other people's money on war. When folks are inconsistent like that - they weaken their argument, imo.
We are not the world's policeman. We are one country among hundreds. Someone told me that 90% of the people on this planet live in survival mode. If that is even close to true - I wonder why those are declare the need for war a moral imperative - but do not cry out for assistance to those who don't have enough to eat - or proper medical care?
"Someone told me that 90% of the people on this planet live in survival mode. If that is even close to true - "
It's not.
Not even remotely.
Not even within the realm of ridiculous.
Unless by "survival mode" it means "has to work to pay bills."
100% of people in the world are dying.
Did you know that?
It's not.
Not even remotely.
Not even within the realm of ridiculous.
Unless by "survival mode" it means "has to work to pay bills."
100% of people in the world are dying.
Did you know that?
So first, is it your position that it is ok for you to be sarcstic - but not me?
Second - I have reason to trust the person who told me that. I have no reason to trust you.
What is your evidence? There are approximately seven billion people on the planet. How many of them have jobs that pay a living wage? Do you know?
And while we're at it - do you think it is fine to use tax payer money for wars of choice - but not to use tax payer money for single mothers on welfare?
synova,
I just took a moment to do a google search and this came up:
design for the other 90%
It says, unlike my friend, that 90% live just above survival mode - that food, water and shelter are contant worries.
synova,
I took a moment to google the 90% question and got this:
how the other 90% lives
It is not quite what my friend claimed. This says that 90% of the world's population live just beyond survival mode...and that concerns about food, water, and shelter are "persistant worries":
Design for the Other 90% is organized around affordable designs that aid in helping people out of poverty, but it focuses squarely upon a degree of poverty most designers can’t even comprehend. For the most part, these end users live on less than two U.S. dollars a day, reside in the rural areas of developing nations and are operating just above survival mode: food, water and shelter are persistent worries. This exhibition addresses the bulk of the world’s population often disregarded in design circles because of a lack of individual buying power. The message here is clear: these are the people who design could benefit most.
synova,
I took a moment to google about the 90% and got several links to something called "the other 90%" . For some reason my links to it keep getting deleted.
However, it's easy enough to find. They do not say exactly what my friend told me - but very close.
They claim that 90% of people on the planet live just above survival mode and that concerns about food, water and shelter are "persistant" worries.
Post a Comment