Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

[ilw]

Is no one understanding the philosophical points i'm trying to make?
Ok I'll shift my argument away from women, since thats obviously annoying some people.
I'm basically arguing that no belief system is wrong. If we found a society where killing each other was allowed, then I'm sure we'd all be shocked, but if that society is surviving who are we to force our culture on them? Anyone who disagrees with my last statement must think that their beliefs are somehow better (or more right) than this other culture's. Why? You are in effect believing you have the moral right to crush their culture.

Please think about some of these things before giving a knee jerk response.

And the resorting to fiction thing I was quite proud of that

[Billy_Dean]

@ Rat Faced. Hi.

I also believe male circumcism is wrong, and in Australia it is done for "health" reasons, because men cannot keep their penises clean underneath a foreskin.

As for piercing daughter's ears, my experience of this has been my daughters (3) begging to have it done, and me refusing. This may be more prevailent than you think.


B)

[ilw]

woohoo, just saw Rat faced's comment, and i agree 100%

[cowswithguns]

Originally posted by ilw@14 September 2003 - 13:27
I read the story and I was aware of it beforehand.
how about people in America who want terrorist training? Would the US government stand idly by and allow secret societies to train people in creating chemical and biological weapons? You may think these things are different, but the only difference is in what you perceive is dangerous.

The belief that women shouldn't be educated is equally as valid as the belief that women should be educated.

Is it? Who says?

Who says it isn't right to believe women shouldn't be educated.

So you're drawing parallels between the rights to train as terrorists and the right of a woman to have an education....and the dangers therein...A tad extreme I think.

I would have thought that it was everyone's right to a basic education regardless of what gender they were.

Hopefully one day women in any culture will be able to overcome the restrictions placed upon them and be able to freely educate themselves and be treated with the respect they deserve.

[ilw]

The terrorism thing was because i needed an example everyone would understand as wrong to teach, and thats quite hard to think of in the thankfullly liberal societies we find ourselves in. Edit: I just thought of another, I think we should teach all teenagers how to have sex (ie practical lessons). Thats not as extreme is it, cos I would maybe agree with this idea, hmmm.

I would have thought that it was everyone's right to a basic education regardless of what gender they were

ditto I think education is of supreme importance.

However, do you have the right to say that a culture which doesn't believe this is wrong? I think rat faced made the point more clearly than me

[clocker]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 00:33
@ Shelley ..

Iám wondering what world you live in ? WHO is going to protect and educate the women of the Middle East ?

I'm wondering what world you live in ? Are you saying women can't be educated? Are you saying we shouldn't bother trying, because of their past treatment?

Strange post!


B)

Reading her posts, I don't get the impression that Shelley would deny that women should be educated.
Her post asks WHO is going to do it and HOW.

You going to march into Saudi Arabia or Iran and just start setting up women's acadamies? Woman's driving schools?

After all, it is the right thing to do.

Apparently, when you decide that something is just plain patently "right" it's perfectly okay to impose your belief on another country.

When the US does the exact same thing, we are bullies and cultural imperialists.

[Billy_Dean]

Do you have the right to say extreme fundamentalists are wrong then? Were they "right" then on 911? Are they "right" to want the destruction of the US?

If we didn't choose between right and wrong, as we perceived them, where do you think the world would be now?


B)

[Billy_Dean]

Come on Clocko, go read here, get my comments in perspective first. This is the type of thing I was talking about.

When you get to this bit ...

"When you capture a bird and put her into a cage, the bird will not have education or freedom. But even the owner of a bird gives it food and water to keep it alive. The Taliban doesn't even treat us like a caged bird. They don't care whether we die in our houses, or if we live," says Habib, who holds free literacy classes in her small Peshawar home for Afghan refugee girls.

The classroom is located in a 12-by-12-foot room, off a courtyard at the end of a maze of mud-walled alleyways. The classes are sponsored by a shadowy women's rights group called the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, or RAWA. For 14 years, this secretive organization has documented the oppression of Afghan women and operated a network of underground schools for women inside Afghanistan and refugees in neighboring Pakistan.

.... you'll see where my comments came from.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/...libanwomen.html

The exact same thing? I think NOT!



B)

[clocker]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 07:59
Do you have the right to say extreme fundamentalists are wrong then? Were they "right" then on 911? Are they "right" to want the destruction of the US?

If we didn't choose between right and wrong, as we perceived them, where do you think the world would be now?


B)

Did I not make myself clear?

Guess not.

I was not commenting on the essential 'rightness" of any particular stance, nor was I trying to deny anyone the right to choose one ideology over another.

Obviously, I don't agree with radical Islamic fundamentalists.

I was simply pointing out the disconnect in the board's tenor here.
If you can arbitrarily decide that it's okay to impose your western, liberal concept of women's rights on cultures that actively disagree with you, then why can't the US do the same with democracy?

[ilw]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@14 September 2003 - 15:59
Do you have the right to say extreme fundamentalists are wrong then?  Were they "right" then on 911?  Are they "right" to want the destruction of the US?

If we didn't choose between right and wrong, as we perceived them, where do you think the world would be now?


B)

yes i have the right to say extreme fundamentalists are wrong. Its freedom of speech which is a right granted to me by the country i am in.
Edit; removed some rubbish i was saying.


I take the 'we' is the royal we. But then surely you agree people in the US can determine what is right and wrong and enforce it in other countries? If not the US who? The UN? why should the UN be able to say, what about non-member states? Should all countries get together and agree on what each country can do? Should it be democratically decided ie one vote per country or bigger countries get more votes? Bigger how population or size or economy or military power or ....?

Its gonna get confusing if you start talking about exactly what rights a country has because each country determines for itself what rights another country has. but then you can say what right does a country have to decide this and so on.