Outrageous injustice

  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
  • #26
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
Being subjective, isn't that also a reason to judge it?
To what end? if it is relevant for them in their culture and not for us in ours, how can we pass any meaningful judgement? And even of we could, what would we do? Overrule them? Invade them?


I'm not suggesting I like the law or how they treat women, I just think that the only way to peace is to respect other cultures, whether or not we understand em. Maybe it comes from watching so much Star Trek...:rolleyes:


I believe that the primary reason we war with foreign cultures is that deep-down, we do not treat their cultures with the respect we demand for our own.

?
You're reading your own issues into the article. That's what makes a "good" article get talked about. What I'm trying to do is tease out from the mish-mash of outraged emotions what, exactly, is unjust here - and what is not.

I'm trying to root out the potential for hypocrasy - where we may pass judgement on things that, if applied to us, in our personal experience, we would see differently. Would you demand that, if you were caught robbing a house and were nearly killed, that you should not be punished for robbing the house?
 
Last edited:
  • #27
To what end? if it is relevant for them in their culture and not for us in ours, how can we pass any meaningful judgement? And even of we could, what would we do? Overrule them? Invade them?

I'm not suggesting I like the law or how they treat women, I just think that the only way to peace is to respect other cultures, whether or not we understand em. Maybe it comes from watching so much Star Trek...:rolleyes:

I believe that the primary reason we war with foreign cultures is that deep-down, we do not treat their cultures with the respect we demand for our own.
Why couldn't I apply the same argument of yours to a more personal, neighborly situation? Why is "a different culture" where the buck don't go?

You're reading your own issues into the article. That's what makes a "good" article get talked about. What I'm trying to do is tease out from the mish-mash of outraged emotions what, exactly, is unjust here - and what is not.

I'm trying to root out the potential for hypocrasy - where we may pass judgement on things that, if applied to us, in our personal experience, we would see differently. Would you demand that, if you were caught robbing a house and were nearly killed, that you should not be punished for robbing the house?
Someway, somehow, I believe there is a better way in life. And I believe that without judging the conduct of other cultures, peoples, or individuals, we'll never figure out what that may be.

Let's go further out and put a witch trial into the argument. Should we let a young girl be burned at the stake, for the sake of respecting that society's ideas?
 
  • #28
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,304
124
For starters, and as separate counts, whereby terms such as "but," "or," "and" are meant not as exclusions but are meant as inclusions, I'd undo first and foremost and as a key element, the inequality of the sexes before the law; unrestrained or excessive or vindictive or inhuman interpretation, implementation and application of the existing law; any higher court's ability to micro-manage lower court decisions (insofar as the higher court interferes with specific selective aspects of the lower court decision rather than upholding vs. overturning it in its entirety); to the extent present, the practice of Ministry of Justice's appointment of judges and its interference with court decisions; and all punishment conflicting with my (personal) principle of "no cruel and unusual punishment."

I think I could come up with 10 or 20 additional counts, but that would take more time and thought.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
Let's go further out and put a witch trial into the argument. Should we let a young girl be burned at the stake, for the sake of respecting that society's ideas?
Was burning at the stake a government sanctioned law or was it mob rule?



Of note: burning at the stake is WAY overrated. No witches at the Salem Witch trials were burned at the stake and rarely anywhere else either. Mostly they were hanged.

Sometimes what we think are reliable facts we can use as precedents, aren't so much. :rolleyes:
 
  • #30
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
Someway, somehow, I believe there is a better way in life. And I believe that without judging the conduct of other cultures, peoples, or individuals, we'll never figure out what that may be.
Was this a Freudian slip or do you really believe that it is "we" who do the judging, and it is "other cultures" that are judged?

See how slippery this slope is? Oh sure, after-the fact, that can say you "didn't really mean it that way"... What would you have gone on to do if no one had pointed out the error?
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Witch burning is a bad example. But it still suits the point I'm making. I think it's safe to say that there is a right and wrong way of implementing justice. And I have every right to judge the way justice is being carried out. I resort to blanket judgments like this when even on the surface it's clearly wrong. But that's only according to me, of course.

And a few others here, too.
 
  • #32
Was this a Freudian slip or do you really believe that it is "we" who do the judging, and it is "other cultures" that are judged?

It's very easy to say, after-the fact, that you "didn't really mean it that way", isn't it?
Eh? I don't understand what you mean by this.
 
  • #33
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
Witch burning is a bad example. But it still suits the point I'm making. I think it's safe to say that there is a right and wrong way of implementing justice.
Really? How can that be true and it be subjective at the same time?
 
  • #34
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
Eh? I don't understand what you mean by this.
Reread your post. You said we will do the "judging" and other cultures will do the "being judged".

As I said in post 26:
...deep-down, we do not treat other cultures with the respect we demand for our own.
 
  • #35
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,773
Dave, I noticed you conveniently bypassed my post.

People arent sentenced to flogging in the US.

Women aren't treated like cattle (or worse) in the US.
It also looks like you've forgotten this is the 21st century since you keep referring to how things were done 400-500 years ago.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Really? How can that be true and it be subjective at the same time?
"I judge this to be true."

Isn't that how a court system is designed?
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Reread your post. You said we will do the "judging" and other cultures will do the "being judged".
Yeah, so? What I don't understand is what you're getting at by this.
 
  • #38
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
Dave, I noticed you conveniently bypassed my post.
It wasn't convenient, I just didn't have anything to say becasue I'm not sure what your point is.

If I were to guess, I'd interpolate that what you object to is not that she was punished but how she was punished.
 
  • #39
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
"I judge this to be true."

Isn't that how a court system is designed?
No.

Closer: we, as a people believe that, in our best interest, it is true.
 
  • #40
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,773
It wasn't convenient, I just didn't have anything to say becasue I'm not sure what your point is.

If I were to guess, I'd interpolate that what you object to is not that she was punished but how she was punished.
No, it's obvious from my post that I object to both.

Please stop trying to derail this thread with meaningless references to atrocities of hundreds of years ago. We're talking about now.

We're talking about atrocities happening NOW under the guise of religion. If you want to tell us why it's ok that women have no rights in some countries, let's hear why you would defend that women are less than human.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
No.

Closer: we, as a people believe that, in our best interest, it is true.
And that's not subjective?
 
  • #42
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
Yeah, so? What I don't understand is what you're getting at by this.
: blinks audibly :
: pauses :
: blinks audibly again :

Are you telling me that you don't see anything wrong with one culture setting themselves up as the judge of other cultures?
 
  • #43
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
And that's not subjective?
It means that those who are affected by the laws (as a people) are those who make the laws (as a people).

This is how a society keeps checks and balances on itself.
 
  • #44
: blinks audibly :
: pauses :
: blinks audibly again :

Are you telling me that you don't see anything wrong with one culture setting themselves up as the judge of other cultures?
No, I don't. Now, I'm not suggesting an active intervention. But what's wrong with looking at another culture and saying, "that's just wrong"? Do we not need to examine how other peoples conduct themselves and compare results? It seems to me that judging another legal system is a reasonable means of assessing where we are and how we could improve. Otherwise, it feels like being a bit more in the dark.
 
  • #45
It means that those who are affected by the laws (as a people) are those who make the laws (as a people).

This is how a society keeps checks and balances on itself.
But they're still judging things, interpreting results, gauging successes. I mean, he's called a "judge." And he's determining in his best judgment whether something is true.

I don't see a difference.
 
  • #46
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
No, it's obvious from my post that I object to both.
The trouble is, it's not so obvious. I'm trying to tease out of broad statements exactly what the objections are.

There has been virtually no discussion in this entire thread (and I don't mean just me) about the meoth of punishment, evidence that it was not an issue on most poster's minds.

Please stop trying to derail this thread with meaningless references to atrocities of hundreds of years ago. We're talking about now.
Whoa Whoa. Me? I'm not. I didn't raise the witch hunt thing. I refuted it.

If you want to tell us why it's ok that women have no rights in some countries, let's hear why you would defend that women are less than human.
Show, using the evidence in the article being discussed, that women "have no rights" and are "less than human". If you step outside the article for your points, I will cry "straw man".


And again, I don't disagree that a terrible thing is happening here, I just don't believe that kneejerk reactions and broad judgement do anything but weaken the issue.
 
  • #47
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
No, I don't. Now, I'm not suggesting an active intervention. But what's wrong with looking at another culture and saying, "that's just wrong"? Do we not need to examine how other peoples conduct themselves and compare results? It seems to me that judging another legal system is a reasonable means of assessing where we are and how we could improve. Otherwise, it feels like being a bit more in the dark.
Sure. Does it work both ways? Is it OK for other cultures to look West and say "that's just wrong!"

Cuz, that's what they've been screaming for decades...
 
  • #48
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
OK, I've got to go home. Doing this at work gets me fired too much. It'll take me a half hour or an hour.

DON'T ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING INTERESTING!
 
  • #49
Sure. Does it work both ways? Is it OK for other cultures to look West and say "that's just wrong!"

Cuz, that's what they've been screaming for decades...
I certainly hope they do. And they do. But how would improvement eventually come forth if we (and they) just ignored what they see as atrocities? To not even look at each other and not examine how the other does things can't lead to much progress.

OK, I've got to go home. Doing this at work gets me fired too much. It'll take me a half hour or an hour.

DON'T ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING INTERESTING!
:tongue:
sorry, just saw this after posting my reply. I'll shut up now.
 
  • #50
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,773
The trouble is, it's not so obvious. I'm trying to tease out of broad statements exactly what the objections are.
From this you can't find anything obvious?

People arent sentenced to flogging in the US.

Women aren't treated like cattle (or worse) in the US.

Objection 1) FLOGGING

Objection 2) Women aren't treated as equal human beings, they have virtually no rights.

Show, using the evidence in the article being discussed, that women "have no rights" and are "less than human". If you step outside the article for your points, I will cry "straw man".
That a woman is not allowed to be alone with a man that is not a relative, no matter how innocent. It's not just frowned upon, it's a crime punishable by flogging and prison!!!! A man with a woman that is not a relative, will not be punished. And that's just in this article. Want to start a discussion on the lack of women's right in Islamic countries?
 

Related Threads on Outrageous injustice

  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
10K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top