raped women being put to death

Oh, my apologies then Jim. It's totally fair to kill a woman by bashing her head in with stones because she offended the honor of her family by being raped against her will.

 

Political Correctness is insisting on multiculturalism while refusing to acknowledge that culture isn't just folk dancing and spicy cooking, it's also ingrained racism, genital mutilation, and honour killings.

Political Correctness is unshakeable faith in the virtue of women and members of minority groups and the fundamental malevolence of all straight white males.

Political Correctness is insisting that preferential treatment now atones for the wrongs done to previous generations.

Political Correctness is removing a child of native blood from the white household he's been raised in because 'culture is in the blood'.

Political Correctness is expecting all whites to feel guilt for the deeds of earlier generations of whites who believed that 'culture is in the blood'.

Political Correctness is insisting that equal opportunity doesn't exist if there are not equal outcomes.

Political Correctness is being unemployed for two solid years while nine out of every ten job postings have a qualifier that translates as 'able bodied white males need not apply'.

Political Correctness is my wife being publicly insulted because it suits both of us for her to look after the home front while I 'bring home the bacon'.

Political Correctness is believing that 'Joe six-pack' has had everything handed to him when he's had to work for it every bit as hard as any gay vegetarian woman has - and maybe harder.

I do NOT FAVOR Political Correctness. Only a fundamental respect for every human being - regardless of race color or creed - with me reserving the right to judge his actions.

 

political correctness is meaningless in the face of human suffering. i mean, the nazi's thought they were doing the right thing, too. was just for them to decide? or was it fo rthe rest of us to say "that's just fucking sick." the antibellum south had their own culture of slavery, was if for them to decide for themselves? or was it up to the dissenters to try to change it? and don't bother with the "those were white people" argument. that's totally irrelevent. these were people who'd established their own culture, as people are wont to do.

 

its very simple people

whats wrong is wrong..and must be made right

period

 

The wrong of ignoring indigionous (sp?) culture is less than the wrong of killing rape victims.

On the other hand, changing social attitudes is very difficult. Even after centuries, Clive's injuction to India "Do not burn your wives!" has not fully taken hold.

 

sadly this is true, all the "honor killings" ... its so widespread all across the region , pakisthan, Afghanisthan, Saudi Arabia... you can put the entire middle east into the picture.

There are no laws protecting women in those countries. I have a friend who is from pakisthan , she says that for a woman to work in pakisthan is like a very big disgrace for their family. I then asked her how a woman got to be the leader of that country at one point in time... and she said that it is not seen in the cities but in villages/ towns etc, its terrible. Also, many of the places in western part of pakisthan are not really controlled by the pakisthani government...they follow whatever they wish.

 

Actually its not their culture, the muslim empire in the past used to be very tolerant (more tolerant than the west anyway, but that was a long time ago).

Also, I don't know what quran you have read, but I read some very feminist ideas in quran... funny huh? go get it from a mosque near you :sunglasse

 

Jedi: please look up sarcasm.

I've read the quran

 

sarcasm , wuss that?

 

Sarcasm is a rhetorical technique that should only be attempted in person (aided by body languange) or by professionals.

 

well none of us got the sarcasm. Sarcasm is hard to convey on a forum.

But Irongoth has since redeemed himself.

 

You're all still ignoring the point; what gives you the right to tell other people what's right?

E.g.

Wrong according to you - why should anyone else agree with your conception of 'right' and 'wrong'?

Or:

What gives you the authority to make this rule?

 

Violence isn't culture.

Human rights is the concern for all people, and the human rights of Nigerians are just as important as the rights of Europeans. We wouldn't stand for this in Sweeden, we shouldn't let it happen in Africa.

The racist thing to do here is ignore the plight of the poor in Nigeria.This is culture being forced on them, and to say violence aginst women is just their society, is intollerant, elitist, and cold.

 

So what should we do about it? Invade?

Where do you draw the line? Do foreigners have any right to run their own affairs? Should they do what USAians tell them all the time? What if half the USA says one thing, and the other half says another?

This has nothing to do with 'respecting their culture' - it's just a case of the USA not being in charge of the whole world!

 

There are many ways to deal with human rights abuses, invading is the least appealing of options. We should be sponsering the african union to resolve these issues, but unfortunatly, they are already overspread.

Sovernty issues are irrelevant, when a government can't protect its people, it needs help, as do many nations in Africa. The people of these nations have their arms open for us, it's we who've been ignoring them.

How in the world did you get human rights issues confused with zionism? The US doesn't need to be in charge of the world to help in human rights crisis.

The people of Africa deserve the same rights we have in the west.

 

Zionism? o_0


So, you're saying that every nation has the right to dictate behaviour to others? Or does it only apply to the majority view?

You still haven't answered my question; what gives you the right to tell other countries how to behave? I know, I know; human rights. But what gives you the authority to tell/force other countries to obey? God? The USA? Self-righteousness?

 

when someone asks for help, you provide it. these women in these countries, as well as numerous other people within these countries, have repeatedly requested assistance from the world. they're being criminally abused, and they know it, and they want it to stop. just as the abused within our own country have their own advocates, the abused in these countries should have their's as well. how is that difficult to understand? i know you wanna go on a rant about how the usa get in trouble for pushing it's view on the world and say that should we do this it's just us being imperialist again, hoping and praying that you've got the libs on the run with their own argument. but it's just not so. it's NOT the same thing.

 

No, I'm saying every person has the right to live in peace. Whether the factors disrupting the peace are new government interventions like the holocaust, or thousand year old social factors is irrelevant.

If a country is brutalising its own women and children, with no enforcement for their welfare, then someone must protect them.

Nobodys giving me any right, I'm claiming the right. As long as their our nations where women are being brutalised, and genocide being commited, I will put my social political views aside and elect people willing to intervene.

I don't believe in god or patriotism, so I guess you can call it self righteousness, But I will do everything I can to make sure these people, living in terror, have a good future ahead of them, because they deserve it.

 

Its up to the entire world to announce its disapproval of regimes who mistreat others human rights, not just the United States. I think that htere are certain basic standards that we can agree on...its not infringing on cultures that don't deserve to be infringed on. Of course maybe people should step in on our shaky legal sytem and use of the death penalty, in my opinion that is part of our culture that deserves to be infringed upon too.

I don't see invasion as ever being a viable response to these situations....destroying a country and killing thousands in the process does not seem like an acceptable way to stop the killing.

 

So USAians have the unconditional right to tell everyone else what's right and wrong? Who exactly holds the reins here? You? Overall USA public opinion? USA law? The UN?