Somalian justice

[todd]

Makes me want to puke.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8347216.stm

[okbye]

And yet they don't give a crap if a woman is raped.

[mhalbrook]

Ah, there you go imposing your values and morals on others again.

[Nitro]

Sounds like they care, they just stone you to death...

I can't believe that they still don't have a functioning government.

[okbye]

Rape is not considered an issue. They seem to believe men have the right to have sex with any woman they want. They have free roaming rape gangs.
Some time ago we had a huge influx of Somali refugees, I don't know who brought them over but it was some group effort. There are many of them in my area. The only real problems have been involving women, in fact there was recently a gang rape of a very young Somali girl in my neighborhood by a group of Somali males, one was only 9. They were caught and their attitude is like "So, what's the problem?". The father of the 9 y.o. made a comment about the boy not doing anything wrong and the parents of the girl blame her. If she weren't a female men would not have to get in trouble for raping her. They were heard and quoted telling her to her face it was her fault. So no, they don't care.

[Trega]

I don't understand why they want to kill the woman as well. This is sickening to me.

Mhalbrook, how is this Todd "imposing his morals and beliefs" on anyone? A man got his girlfriend pregnant and they threw rocks at his head until he died. Now the girlfriend may be put to death in the same way simply for being a woman. This is simple human rights, and I'm honestly a little shocked at your attitude.

[ABwannabe]

I don't understand why they want to kill the woman as well. This is sickening to me.

Neither do I. I've heard similar stories over the past few years: stories about women who were stoned for being alone in a car with a man who isn't a relative, about a woman who is raped being stoned while the rapist gets a relatively minor treatment. It doesn't really make sense to me at all.

Mhalbrook, how is this Todd "imposing his morals and beliefs" on anyone? A man got his girlfriend pregnant and they threw rocks at his head until he died. Now the girlfriend may be put to death in the same way simply for being a woman. This is simple human rights, and I'm honestly a little shocked at your attitude.

I can't speak for him, but I think Mhallbrok was being sarcastic, in order to show that the line is pretty gray between what would be considered "tolerance of other cultures" and offense over stories like this. Many of the same people who claim that we have not right to judge others by our value system, express outrage over stories like this. It appears logically inconsistent.

[mhalbrook]

Mhalbrook, how is this Todd "imposing his morals and beliefs" on anyone?

I can't speak for him, but I think Mhallbrok was being sarcastic, in order to show that the line is pretty gray between what would be considered "tolerance of other cultures" and offense over stories like this. Many of the same people who claim that we have not right to judge others by our value system, express outrage over stories like this. It appears logically inconsistent.

Exactly. Where is the line drawn? When does a people rights to their own controversial views end? That the majority of sane, rational people would agree with the feelings expressed, they're still pushing their moral judgment on the country/culture in question. Just because *YOU* (and I for that matter) feel the actions were wrong, how is it really any different than what happens when the majority of a community, city or state votes the way you don't want them to on a particular hot button issue?

[fizzviic]

Just because *YOU* (and I for that matter) feel the actions were wrong, how is it really any different than what happens when the majority of a community, city or state votes the way you don't want them to on a particular hot button issue?

Perhaps it is a matter of degree, probity and common humanity.

In our culture and in most across the earth, women are not considered chattel. Yes, in some they may be considered second class, but insome cultures, and I might add, some religious sects, mysogeyny is their norm. And as such gives free reign to rape and "honor killing". After all, a woman is not human, she is a "thing" often of less value than a goat!

In most cultures murder (as opposed to killing) is both a moral and societal crime. Some do not see such religious acts as being murder, only punishment for a transgression. I respectfully submit that there are certain human rights at play here, and an enlightened culture looks askance at such actions.

The rights of women are just as important as those of a man, regardless of culture, location or religion. Try arguing this with your wife.

[haleoalau]

It's different because I don't seek to stone my city council members to death when a school tax doesn't go the way I think.

[A_reasonable_man]

It's different because I don't seek to stone my city council members to death when a school tax doesn't go the way I think.

Maybe we should...

[mhalbrook]

It's different because I don't seek to stone my city council members to death when a school tax doesn't go the way I think.

But it's your moral judgment that doing that is wrong.

[todd]

[Trega]

:wall:

Yep.

[mhalbrook]

:wall:

Sorry, I forgot, that kind of argument is only valid when it's aimed at conservative values and views.

[Trega]

:wall:

Sorry, I forgot, that kind of argument is only valid when it's aimed at conservative values and views.

This conversation has nothing to do with your conservative values and views. It's focused on your inability to see the plainness of a human rights issue, which you insist on clouding with "well that's YOUR moral system" arguments.

[fizzviic]

:wall:

Sorry, I forgot, that kind of argument is only valid when it's aimed at conservative values and views.

This conversation has nothing to do with your conservative values and views. It's focused on your inability to see the plainness of a human rights issue, which you insist on clouding with "well that's YOUR moral system" arguments.

QFT. Thank you.

[ABwannabe]

Sorry, I forgot, that kind of argument is only valid when it's aimed at conservative values and views.

This conversation has nothing to do with your conservative values and views. It's focused on your inability to see the plainness of a human rights issue, which you insist on clouding with "well that's YOUR moral system" arguments.

QFT. Thank you.

Actually, he is repeating back the exact same argument used to attack conservatives. I agree with him. We all agree that the reported case is heinous and wrong. The point is, if moral relativism is so important to those of a more liberal philosophy, then what line has been crossed to support the blanket statement "what they believe is morally wrong."

[Grovite]

Yet one more reason on a planet sized pile of reasons why religion has been, is and will forever be a problem.

[mhalbrook]

:wall:

Sorry, I forgot, that kind of argument is only valid when it's aimed at conservative values and views.

This conversation has nothing to do with your conservative values and views.

You're right, it doesn't anything to do with my values and views, but it has everything to do with THEIRS. And that is the point.

It's focused on your inability to see the plainness of a human rights issue

You're a fool if you think I don't see what's the actual point is, and a bigger fool if you think I support what's going on over there. That said, you know good and well, if the article in question had to do with abortion in the USA with the same quote, people would be all over them with the exact same arguments I'm making. And in my book Abortion is just as much a human rights issue as this is.

[A_reasonable_man]

moral relativism

This is also a case study of cultural relativism.

[okbye]

You're a fool if you think I don't see what's the actual point is, and a bigger fool if you think I support what's going on over there. That said, you know good and well, if the article in question had to do with abortion in the USA with the same quote, people would be all over them with the exact same arguments I'm making. And in my book Abortion is just as much a human rights issue as this is.

The only way that would be comparable is if you were talking about involuntary abortion. If you think allowing women the choice to have an abortion is even in the same league as stoning them to death for adultery or being raped then I don't know what to say.

[Trega]

I am at a complete and total loss of words. Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. YOU'RE a fool if you think I do not fully understand your beliefs are coming into play, and I'm completely, totally, and utterly through with trying to reach you with such a simple point.

In other news, throwing rocks at women for being women is still wrong, whether you voted for Obama or McCain.

[mhalbrook]

The only way that would be comparable is if you were talking about involuntary abortion.

Last I checked the child in the womb didn't have a choice in the matter, making their death involuntary.

If you think allowing women the choice to have an abortion is even in the same league as stoning them to death for adultery or being raped then I don't know what to say.

If you think an unborn child isn't a child, I don't know what to say.

[Kinsley]

If you think allowing women the choice to have an abortion is even in the same league
as stoning them to death for adultery or being raped then I don't know what to say.

If you think an unborn child isn't a child, I don't know what to say.

The issue that you can't seem to open your mind the tiniest bit is the definition of a child.

Your opinion is clearly that a child results immediately from the feritilization of an egg.
Many others, mostly from religious teachings, share that opinion.

BUT

Many others, from their own consideration of the matter, believe that a fetus does not
become a child until it could survive on it's own, outside the womb, and until then, it is just
part of it's mother's body.

As long as those on your side of the argument insist on demonizing those who have an
honestly different opinion, you are wasting your efforts.

[ABwannabe]

The issue that you can't seem to open your mind the tiniest bit is the definition of a child.

Your opinion is clearly that a child results immediately from the feritilization of an egg.
Many others, mostly from religious teachings, share that opinion.
[...]
Many others, from their own consideration of the matter, believe that a fetus does not
become a child until it could survive on it's own, outside the womb, and until then, it is just
part of it's mother's body.

This encapsulates, in my opinion, the crux of Mhallbrook's original point. On the issue of abortion, we have two differing opinions. When a pro-life person expresses outrage over abortion, he is often accused of imposing his beliefs on others. Yet, when the Islamist Somalians kill adults as punishment for a crime that we consider to be minor, outrage expressed is considered noble.

I ask again - what line has been crossed? Why is it okay to be outraged over the killing of two criminals, and yet not a preborn child?

Oh, and I see very little evidence of pro-choice proponents "opening their minds" to idea that - perhaps - physical viability is not the best criteria for determining when the fetus becomes a child. What about the soul?

[fizzviic]

More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than by all the dictators in history.

[mhalbrook]

Many others, from their own consideration of the matter, believe that a fetus does not
become a child until it could survive on it's own, outside the womb, and until then, it is just
part of it's mother's body.

If surviving on it's own is the criteria, then it takes several years post-birth for that to happen.

As long as those on your side of the argument insist on demonizing those who have an
honestly different opinion, you are wasting your efforts.

Pot meet kettle.

[mhalbrook]

More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than by all the dictators in history.

I'd wager that more good has been done in the name of Faith than by any government agency.

[fizzviic]

More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than by all the dictators in history.

I'd wager that more good has been done in the name of Faith than by any government agency.

Did I say anything about government agencies? I don't recall doing so, therefore your retort is a non sequitur.

I've seen a lot of young men and women who gave selflessly through agencies like the Peace Corps and Americore yet have seen very few preachers or their flocks do little more than render lip service. Yes, some collections fund entities like Catholic Charities, but where do the gozillions of bucks raised by the mega churches go. Huge salaries to Joel Olsteen and his wife? I maintain that if I had to do it all over again, I'd try to get in the God Business. Seems it pays pretty damn well.

I have no quarrel with your faith, your beliefs or your piety. I do however, have a problem with your sanctimoniousness.