Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
True. Good points. I wonder how slavery ended. Did it end by the slaves breaking the law and running away? Or did it end with a political movement, and an amendment to the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery ended in every other industrial nation before it ended in the US because it was uneconomical to continue using slaves instead of free labor. Tariffs and laws in the US kept the institution of slavery alive for several decades longer that it would have with a handful of legislative acts (or lack there off).

On the other hand you totally ignore that Slavery in the US existed for CENTURIES, your position seems to be that those slaves who lived during those times should have never attempted to run away because "breaking the law is wrong". Of course you would ignore the issue because eventually the descendants of these slaves were granted their freedom and that makes it OK for you to condemn those slaves who did escape and those people who did help them. Your position is one of the most vile imaginable, holding up words on scraps of paper as more important than empathy, freedom, and life itself.

[valenzuela]

Im not surprised, didnt even read the OP. I suppose the true agressor got 5000 lashes or something amirite?

[2/325Falcon]

Who's up for a draft so we can invade Saudi Arabia, get a regime change, and load up on oil. Let's gogogogo!

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Brutality seems independent of Christianity, while positively correlated to Muslim ones. Of course we could not be using other variables, like poverty, development, so on.

But it does suggest a causative link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if there really is such a strong correlation that we can infer causation, why not go ahead and cite some kind of study instead of just hand-wavingly asserting it?

I mean, you seem to understand there are other variables at play, but you then claim there's actually a suggested "causative link". Do you have any kind of formal study you could provide a link to, or is this just a hunch of yours?

I'd say we should first go ahead and prove there's actually a statistically significant correlation to begin with, instead of just assuming ante hoc it actually exists. Then we can go about deciding if there's actually anything causative to be inferred. Assuming there's actually a correlation, then doing a bit of head-scratching to see if the assumed correlation suggests a causative link is putting the cart before the horse.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True. Good points. I wonder how slavery ended. Did it end by the slaves breaking the law and running away? Or did it end with a political movement, and an amendment to the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery ended in every other industrial nation before it ended in the US because it was uneconomical to continue using slaves instead of free labor. Tariffs and laws in the US kept the institution of slavery alive for several decades longer that it would have with a handful of legislative acts (or lack there off).

On the other hand you totally ignore that Slavery in the US existed for CENTURIES, your position seems to be that those slaves who lived during those times should have never attempted to run away because "breaking the law is wrong". Of course you would ignore the issue because eventually the descendants of these slaves were granted their freedom and that makes it OK for you to condemn those slaves who did escape and those people who did help them. Your position is one of the most vile imaginable, holding up words on scraps of paper as more important than empathy, freedom, and life itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you brought up slavery. I thought it was an irrelivant example (and I wrote as much). There is a difference between the two examples. These women practice Islam. They don't revolt against it. How did women get rights in the United States? They proved that they deserved it; they said "Listen Bob, I know you're my husband, but I'm not going to suck your dick anymore unless you get the law changed." And what did Bob say? "LETS CHANGE THE LAWS!" Women had no say in this country either until the 1920's, yet they managed to get the laws changed.

And please don't make unfactual assumptions about my character as if you know me, based on a few sentences I wrote, based on a ridiculous example you brought up.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not surprised, didnt even read the OP. I suppose the true agressor got 5000 lashes or something amirite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Originally they got 1-5 years. It was upped to 2-9 years.
The victim is Shi'a.
The rapists are Sunni.
Sunni run the country.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
These women practice Islam. They don't revolt against it.

[/ QUOTE ]


This woman was sentenced to 70 lashes for sitting in a car with a man not related to her. This is against islamic law, unless she was
A. Ignorant of the law in Saudi Arabia or
B. Hoping to be punished for it

she is de facto rebelling against that tenet of that religion.

[ QUOTE ]
They proved that they deserved it; they said "Listen Bob, I know you're my husband, but I'm not going to suck your dick anymore unless you get the law changed." And what did Bob say? "LETS CHANGE THE LAWS!" Women had no say in this country either until the 1920's, yet they managed to get the laws changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this changes the fact that women prior to 1920 in the US lived under unjust laws, and that you state people living under unjust laws should not violate them because you are against breaking the law.

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, you brought up slavery. I thought it was an irrelivant example (and I wrote as much).

[/ QUOTE ]

So why is slavery an irrelevant example? Would a slave in 1794 have been wrong to take a chance to escape in your opinion? Would you condemn another for helping him escape because he was breaking the law?

[ QUOTE ]

And please don't make unfactual assumptions about my character as if you know me

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Your position is one of the most vile imaginable, holding up words on scraps of paper as more important than empathy, freedom, and life itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically attacked your position, said nothing about your character.


[ QUOTE ]
, based on a few sentences I wrote, based on a ridiculous example you brought up.

[/ QUOTE ]

My ridiculous example ACTUALLY EXISTED. And if you read enough history you will come across passages written by people who take a very similar position to you, people who condemned both slavery and the slave who tried to escape, holding up the "rule of law" as justification of the latter.

[surftheiop]

Not that im supporting the saudi law in anyway, but i think its worth mentioning that had she been following the law she would not have been raped.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These women practice Islam. They don't revolt against it.

[/ QUOTE ]


This woman was sentenced to 70 lashes for sitting in a car with a man not related to her. This is against islamic law, unless she was
A. Ignorant of the law in Saudi Arabia or
B. Hoping to be punished for it

she is de facto rebelling against that tenet of that religion.

[ QUOTE ]
They proved that they deserved it; they said "Listen Bob, I know you're my husband, but I'm not going to suck your dick anymore unless you get the law changed." And what did Bob say? "LETS CHANGE THE LAWS!" Women had no say in this country either until the 1920's, yet they managed to get the laws changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this changes the fact that women prior to 1920 in the US lived under unjust laws, and that you state people living under unjust laws should not violate them because you are against breaking the law.

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, you brought up slavery. I thought it was an irrelivant example (and I wrote as much).

[/ QUOTE ]

So why is slavery an irrelevant example? Would a slave in 1794 have been wrong to take a chance to escape in your opinion? Would you condemn another for helping him escape because he was breaking the law?

[ QUOTE ]

And please don't make unfactual assumptions about my character as if you know me

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Your position is one of the most vile imaginable, holding up words on scraps of paper as more important than empathy, freedom, and life itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically attacked your position, said nothing about your character.


[ QUOTE ]
, based on a few sentences I wrote, based on a ridiculous example you brought up.

[/ QUOTE ]

My ridiculous example ACTUALLY EXISTED. And if you read enough history you will come across passages written by people who take a very similar position to you, people who condemned both slavery and the slave who tried to escape, holding up the "rule of law" as justification of the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These women practice Islam. They don't revolt against it.

[/ QUOTE ]


This woman was sentenced to 70 lashes for sitting in a car with a man not related to her. This is against islamic law, unless she was
A. Ignorant of the law in Saudi Arabia or
B. Hoping to be punished for it

she is de facto rebelling against that tenet of that religion.

[ QUOTE ]
They proved that they deserved it; they said "Listen Bob, I know you're my husband, but I'm not going to suck your dick anymore unless you get the law changed." And what did Bob say? "LETS CHANGE THE LAWS!" Women had no say in this country either until the 1920's, yet they managed to get the laws changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this changes the fact that women prior to 1920 in the US lived under unjust laws, and that you state people living under unjust laws should not violate them because you are against breaking the law.

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, you brought up slavery. I thought it was an irrelivant example (and I wrote as much).

[/ QUOTE ]

So why is slavery an irrelevant example? Would a slave in 1794 have been wrong to take a chance to escape in your opinion? Would you condemn another for helping him escape because he was breaking the law?

[ QUOTE ]

And please don't make unfactual assumptions about my character as if you know me

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Your position is one of the most vile imaginable, holding up words on scraps of paper as more important than empathy, freedom, and life itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically attacked your position, said nothing about your character.


[ QUOTE ]
, based on a few sentences I wrote, based on a ridiculous example you brought up.

[/ QUOTE ]

My ridiculous example ACTUALLY EXISTED. And if you read enough history you will come across passages written by people who take a very similar position to you, people who condemned both slavery and the slave who tried to escape, holding up the "rule of law" as justification of the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if there is a trick to doing the multiple qoutes thing that you did, but if there is, I don't know it, and if there isn't, I don't have the time, I'm just gonna respond point by point, without qoutes. I know it's not as easy to read.

I don't think breaking a law is equal to revolting against the system. I speed all the time, breaking traffic laws; do I consider myself a revolutionary? A rebel? No, I'm just an [censored], breaking the law. Would I speed if I was going to get 200 lashes? lol, no.

Yes, the women in America lived under unjust laws...The point was, they took action to change the laws, they got the constitution amended. Getting the constitution amended is not breaking the law - I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

A slave would not have been wrong to attempt to escape. I'm not 100% sure how you are equating a muslim woman riding in a car with an unkown man to escaping. How was she escaping? She wasn't, she was breaking the law and staying in the system. How does that help anything? No escaping being done. Amount of escaping = 0.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that im supporting the saudi law in anyway, but i think its worth mentioning that had she been following the law she would not have been raped.

[/ QUOTE ]

just an ugly comment all around