Saudi woman to be lashed for defying driving ban

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The idea that anyone is willing to put laws above basic human decency is sickening. There are elements of many cultures which is disgusting and should never be supported, this is one of them.

From the viewpoint of some western cultures, yes.
From others in other parts of the world, no.

Quote

...what is human decency when you'll be looked at as a cultural elitist.

Depends on what the relevant culture says it is.

If you think the only "right" way of looking at life is YOUR way, then you may be a cultural elitist.

Let me ask...when you visit other countries, do you expect the natives to adhere to American cultural values? If you do, then you are probably propagating the "Arrogant American (S. African)" stance that makes those people dislike us so. What you're saying is, "My way is right, your way is wrong. ergo, you're an asshole."

Great way to make friends and influence people.


Oh, wait.
That seems to be the SC motto....on all topics.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Meso 38]

Quote

Depends on what the relevant culture says it is.

If you think the only "right" way of looking at life is YOUR way, then you may be a cultural elitist.

No, no it doesn't. It means one has some common sense. It's all such bullshit, people are so scared of seeming judgemental that they overlook common sense to be politically correct.

Human rights and the well-being of people come before any cultural things. Would you rather be an enabler of suffering or would you rather be able to say you're totally open to other cultures.

You're saying that a culture over-rules any violation of human rights.

There is a bunch of Africans here who had the tribal tradition of finding any girl of any age and raping them. This is how they would get their wives. The girls don't enjoy it, they don't agree with it, but because it's part of that culture the men say they're going to continue to rape these girls.

You're saying that's okay, and that is fucked up.

I'd rather be an elitist than someone who promotes the raping of 13 year old girls. Because you can't say 1 culture is entitled to it's inhumane practices and another culture isn't, if you're saying all cultures must be respected regardless, then you have to respect the one's promoting rape.

Quote

Let me ask...when you visit other countries, do you expect the natives to adhere to American cultural values? If you do, then you are probably propagating the "Arrogant American (S. African)" stance that makes those people dislike us so. What you're saying is, "My way is right, your way is wrong. ergo, you're an asshole."

I'll respect any culture that respects people in general, what I won't respect, is foreign cultures that promote oppression, sexism, racism and rape.

It has nothing to do with me being right... It has to do with people treating other people like complete shit and acting like it's okay because it's in their culture. There's plenty cultures that are full of shit, but as long as they aren't promoting the pain and suffering of others based off ignorance, I really don't mind.

Some people may be willing to let rape, oppression and abuse fly so that they can seem all open minded. I'm not one of them. Basic human decency trumps how others may see me.

[jakee 1,257]

Just so we're absolutely clear, you are saying that extreme forms of gender discrimination are not wrong in countries where dictators have decided there should be extremely discriminatory laws?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Define extreme. the US has gender discrimination on the books. Society acceopts it as part of decency. Its all relative.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Define extreme. the US has gender discrimination on the books. Society acceopts it as part of decency. Its all relative.

Don't be obtuse. The argument that, in cases where there is a grey zone and not a precise dividing line on the spectrum between 'ok' and 'not ok', you can never label any example as 'ok' or 'not ok' is really, really stupid.


To take this distraction of 'respecting other cultures' out of the mix - in Canada it was only 92 years ago that women got full voting rights - before then was that legal discrimination right? If the suffrage movement had failed would it still be right? It was less than 30 years ago that marital rape in Canada was not an offense. Does that mean that in the '70s it was ok?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[babz 0]

As I see it, the question is pretty loaded and the answers the questions aren't the same debate.

It boils down to two questions:

* Should she be punished for breaking the law (which is a conscious act)

* Is this a crime?


My personal view is that she has committed a crime and she should be treated within the extent of the law in that country.

However, I disagree with the law in that country, and believe that it is not a just law.

[Meso 38]

The question is whether she deserves the punishment for her actions. No one deserves punishment for breaking a law that is completely and utterly retarded.

Like saying blacks who walked on white beaches during Apartheid deserved to be arrested.

[babz 0]

I do appreciate that I'm being pedantic here but I believe there is a distinction.

My point is, she broke the law, fully knowing the sort of punishment the legal system may impose if she was caught.

This is where we disagree on the wording deserves. Can you explain why she is above the law?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I do appreciate that I'm being pedantic here but I believe there is a distinction.

My point is, she broke the law, fully knowing the sort of punishment the legal system may impose if she was caught.

This is where we disagree on the wording deserves. Can you explain why she is above the law?

"During a 1956 radio interview with Sydney Rogers in West Oakland several months after her arrest, when asked why she had decided not to vacate her bus seat, Parks said, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen.""

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Meso 38]

Because, what is the law? It's a set of rules put in place by the person who controls that country. Why should one follow laws that make no sense? Because the people in charge tell you to?

I am all for obeying laws that are going to negatively affect those around you. Laws that are put there to protect, I will not however show any respect to laws that are put in place to oppress, with no evidence of being put in place to preserve the well-being of others.

I'd hate to go all Godwin's Law here, but it is very relevant to the discussion. In Nazi Germany there were laws put in place solely for the oppression and subsequent murder of the Jews.

The Nuremberg Laws were laws which Jews were punished for offending. They were oppressive laws solely to deprive the Jews of being seen as regular people. But they were laws none the less. Now are you saying that the Jews who broke the laws deserved what they got?

This is a direct comparison between what is happening in the story in the OP.

A law is set based off the idea that someone is entitled to less rights than another. A law is based off this ignorance, and then it appears some people still think this law should be followed by those oppressed by it.

[babz 0]

I do appreciate the negative status of women in Saudi Arabia, and the comparatives with the Nazi's (not the usual invocation of Godwin's Law on the internet). However, this is again questioning the laws of Saudi Arabia and not the action of this particular woman.

Lets look at the other fact in this case, if she lives in a country where a woman cannot drive, would it be fair to say she hasn't a license or any formal driver training. Therefore posing a risk to the general public on the highways.

How is this different from someone a year younger than the minimum driving age in your home town getting behind the wheel?

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Don't be obtuse. The argument that, in cases where there is a grey zone and not a precise dividing line on the spectrum between 'ok' and 'not ok', you can never label any example as 'ok' or 'not ok' is really, really stupid.


To take this distraction of 'respecting other cultures' out of the mix - in Canada it was only 92 years ago that women got full voting rights - before then was that legal discrimination right? If the suffrage movement had failed would it still be right? It was less than 30 years ago that marital rape in Canada was not an offense. Does that mean that in the '70s it was ok?

You are comparing comparing differences in two societies in today's age with the same society in two different time periods.

My argument is that different societies have different standards. I don't agree with the US discriminating against women and I don't agree with it in Saudi Arabia. Yes, the extent is different, but the premise is teh same, discrimination against women.

Your "examples" all have to do with societal changes over time. I think they have been for the better. Just like I think the change in Saudi society to allow women to vote is a good one.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

My argument is that different societies have different standards.

And where are you going with that argument?

Quote

I don't agree with the US discriminating against women and I don't agree with it in Saudi Arabia.

Then what are you arguing about?

Quote

Your "examples" all have to do with societal changes over time.

Why yes, yes they are. Care to address them? Or at least clarify your position in some way.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Why yes, yes they are. Care to address them? Or at least clarify your position in some way.

I did, they aren't relevant to the discussion.

Quote

And where are you going with that argument?

That many countries (and people) will justify their own behaviour, while decrying that same behaviour in others.

Quote

Then what are you arguing about?

See above.

[charlie5 0]

We need Saudi Oil, it's best we don't ruffle feathers. So I vote for lashings.

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I did, they aren't relevant to the discussion.

Why not?

Quote

That many countries (and people) will justify their own behaviour, while decrying that same behaviour in others.

How is that a relevant reply to my posts?

Seriously, what are you talking about?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Why not?

Explained above.

If you can't see relevance after several explanations, I cannot help you.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

Why not?

Explained above.

Not really. The entire point of my using those examples was to remove the bullshit wishy-washy aversion some people have to criticise laws in other countries because of some misplaced respect for their 'culture'. I want to see your response to times within your own culture when significant forms of discrimination were enshrined in law.

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

Quote

If you can't see relevance after several explanations, I cannot help you.

Perhaps if you weren't trying so hard to be a smartarse you would notice that you haven't made several explanations. "See above" does not count as an addition to an argument.

In your consistent refusal to explain what exactly your problem with my criticism of Saudi law is, I can only assume it's that you think the 'standards' of an absolute monarch who maintains power through a Faustian pact with the worst of his country's fundamentalist clerics is more important than the concepts of liberty and equality when it comes to judging the rightness of that country's laws.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Meso 38]

Quote

How is this different from someone a year younger than the minimum driving age in your home town getting behind the wheel?

It is different in that the law itself regulating younger ages from driving is put in place to protect the person and the other users on the road. It is put there for safety, unlike the Saudi law which is in place solely to oppress.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

You people seem to think that only U.S. laws and customs are valid and relevant.

Just because some of us disagree with the female driving ban in Saudi, it doesn't mean that we think all U.S. laws are valid. (I certainly don't.)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

You people seem to think that only U.S. laws and customs are valid and relevant.

Just because some of us disagree with the female driving ban in Saudi, it doesn't mean that we think all U.S. laws are valid. (I certainly don't.)

I certainly don't either!
If we, as Americans, don't like the law, we have means to have it changed.

Blindly electing to disobey the law just because you don't agree with it is stupid and self-centered. That is only going to make your life miserable when you step over the line and get busted.

"I don't like driving laws so I'll ignore them."
"Oh, hello Officer. Why did you stop me?"
"Hello, Mr. Bail bondsman? Can you come get me out of jail?"

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You people seem to think that only U.S. laws and customs are valid and relevant.

Just because some of us disagree with the female driving ban in Saudi, it doesn't mean that we think all U.S. laws are valid. (I certainly don't.)

I certainly don't either!
If we, as Americans, don't like the law, we have means to have it changed.

And if she, as a Saudi, doesn't like the law, she doesn't.

So what then?

Quote

"I don't like driving laws so I'll ignore them."

"I don't like the Jim Crow laws so I'll ignore them."

Do you feel that Ms Parks was being stupid and self-centered?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Blindly electing to disobey the law just because you don't agree with it is stupid and self-centered.

Not necessarily. Sometimes electing to disobey an unjust law might help to remove that law for future generations.

Because we've had millions of Americans choosing to disobey the marijuana laws, it has become pretty obvious that the old propaganda about it was nothing more than propaganda. So it has slowly become decriminalized over the years, and will likely continue to do so until it becomes legal.

And there was a time when oral sex was illegal. Who do you think was more miserable--the folks who followed the law or the folks who elected to disobey the law?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Depends on what the relevant culture says it is.

If you think the only "right" way of looking at life is YOUR way, then you may be a cultural elitist.

No, no it doesn't. It means one has some common sense.

Well, we're not dealing with common sense. Here, we're dealing with another countries laws and culture.

Quote

Human rights and the well-being of people come before any cultural things.

Based on world history, I would disagree.

Quote

Would you rather be an enabler of suffering or would you rather be able to say you're totally open to other cultures.

Apples/oranges
When did you stop beating your wife?

Quote

You're saying that a culture over-rules any violation of human rights.

No. You misread and then extrapolated.
Pointing out other viewpoints doesn't say squat about what I believe or what my viewpoint is. Sorry you led yourself down that rabbit hole.

Quote

There is a bunch of Africans here ........

The rest of your post is a nice rant...and a good one, too!

What you fail to see is the other side of the fence.
Yes, we both agree that those acts you mentioned are, to us, reprehensible. What you fail to recognize is that to them, it's not.

Does that make it OK in OUR view? Not that I'd say.

In your haste to hate, you've missed the simple point of right/wrong depends on what one believes to BE right or wrong. What's wrong to you can be right to others. They would be just as comfortable ragging you for your laxity as you are for their being strict. Simple as that.

You can squawk all you want and nothing will change until THEY decide to change their culture and laws. You can go to THEIR country and squawk if you like. Some countries would slap you and deport you...some would hang you by the balls.
Have fun while you're there, eh?

Hey! That's a good idea! Why don't you do that. Go to one of those countries and start stirring up things with just what you said here and let us know how it goes.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Blindly electing to disobey the law just because you don't agree with it is stupid and self-centered.

Not necessarily. Sometimes electing to disobey an unjust law might help to remove that law for future generations.

True enough. Though I wouldn't say that those situations are blindly electing to disobey. Purposeful civil disobedience has been a form of instituting change since, well, since forever. My example demonstrates what I consider blind disobedience and was in response to Meso's rant...maybe instead of "blind" it would have been more to the point by saying without purpose.

Your examples were good ones for demonstrating purposeful civil disobedience.

Quote

And there was a time when oral sex was illegal. Who do you think was more miserable--the folks who followed the law or the folks who elected to disobey the law?

Well, up to the point of getting busted but then...hell, if I got busted for getting a BJ, I'd be bragging!
Woefully, in some parts it's still illegal...sodomy laws exist.

Now I would love to see, and participate in, a civil disobedience movement to get those laws blown away, so to speak. A massive gathering of couples engaging in oral sex on the White House lawn would do nicely!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239