Honor killing in Pakistan

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Again, your opinion is yours.

Have a good time thinking you're right on the internet.

ETA:

Just a wiggle about "writing off an entire culture" because it pisses me off. You have no frikken clue about the cultures I associate with, break bread with, drink with; how *********** dare you assume anything based on an internet conversation in which you claim a correspondent is lacking understanding.

I didn't assume anything. It's all there in black and white where you left it.

 

[Nessie]

Then going by your replies above I can only conclude that you're exercising an ill-judged sense of humour; trolling; or back-pedalling.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[Resume]

I didn't assume anything. It's all there in black and white where you left it.

As are your observations which you imagine are the correct ones.

You don't like it when people disagree with your opinions, do you?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

The feeling is mutual.

OK. I can point out several examples of you appearing to troll. If you show me yours, I'll show you mine.

 

[joesixpack]

I think it's important to note here that NO ONE is expressing support for honor killings. The issue here is the idealist moral judgment being cast on the members of a particular culture (or more properly, cultures) for living within the expectations and confines of that culture.

It is easy for me to say that I wouldn't kill my daughter for dishonoring my family, sitting here in a culture where family honor carries little weight, but it would take a level of courage far outside of the bell curve to openly defy one of my own major cultural taboos. There isn't a lot of free will involved here. The "moral" condemnation of people who's morality is vastly different from our own is like condemning a person for not using the same monetary system we do.

No one is advocating that the horrible practice be allowed to continue unchecked. What is being argued is that culture can be changed from within, and trying to change if from without is generally counterproductive.

 

[Nessie]

That is an interesting point.

If we right off the honour killings, domestic violence, lack of education for women and inequality between the sexes, are we righting off the whole culture?

Rather than a pissing contest, which you declined earlier, how about continuing with the topic?

Would their whole culture collapse if they stopped hour killings?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

As are your observations which you imagine are the correct ones.

You don't like it when people disagree with your opinions, do you?

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Believe it or not, it doesn't even bother me when people resort to Ad Homs and hot air because they've run out of argument, but can't bear to stop typing.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Rather than a pissing contest, which you declined earlier, how about continuing with the topic?

Would their whole culture collapse if they stopped hour killings?

I was coming to your point, but I had to nip out. I'm also aware I seem to have missed some of your other comments among the flurry.

So... No, of course their culture wouldn't collapse, and I have never suggested it would. My point is, it is their culture - can you tell me who or what gives us the mandate to police those elements of it that don't conform to our standards?

 

[joesixpack]

Rather than a pissing contest, which you declined earlier, how about continuing with the topic?

Would their whole culture collapse if they stopped hour killings?

Most likely it would if you eliminated the entire concept of family honor.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I think it's important to note here that NO ONE is expressing support for honor killings. The issue here is the idealist moral judgment being cast on the members of a particular culture (or more properly, cultures) for living within the expectations and confines of that culture.

It is easy for me to say that I wouldn't kill my daughter for dishonoring my family, sitting here in a culture where family honor carries little weight, but it would take a level of courage far outside of the bell curve to openly defy one of my own major cultural taboos. There isn't a lot of free will involved here. The "moral" condemnation of people who's morality is vastly different from our own is like condemning a person for not using the same monetary system we do.

No one is advocating that the horrible practice be allowed to continue unchecked. What is being argued is that culture can be changed from within, and trying to change if from without is generally counterproductive.

Oh god thank you... I thought I was going mad. Am I that bad at putting my point across?!

 

[Nessie]

I think it's important to note here that NO ONE is expressing support for honor killings. The issue here is the idealist moral judgment being cast on the members of a particular culture (or more properly, cultures) for living within the expectations and confines of that culture.

It is easy for me to say that I wouldn't kill my daughter for dishonoring my family, sitting here in a culture where family honor carries little weight, but it would take a level of courage far outside of the bell curve to openly defy one of my own major cultural taboos. There isn't a lot of free will involved here. The "moral" condemnation of people who's morality is vastly different from our own is like condemning a person for not using the same monetary system we do.

No one is advocating that the horrible practice be allowed to continue unchecked. What is being argued is that culture can be changed from within, and trying to change if from without is generally counterproductive.

There is a Satanic presence who has been expressing understanding to the point of sympathy for honour killings and misrepresenting others such an aquatic monster by claiming they know nothing and want to force change by external measures.

Our societies have undergone huge changes for the better for women's rights and welfare in the past 50 years. Go further back and women had few rights and were their husbands property and would be disowned for a child out of wedlock, whilst the man got off scot free.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

There is a Satanic presence who has been expressing understanding to the point of sympathy for honour killings

Enough. Show me where I have expressed sympathy with regard to Honour Killings, or condoned them in any way, or withdraw that comment and apologise.

and misrepresenting others such an aquatic monster by claiming they know nothing and want to force change by external measures.

Your quote above this one demonstrates how little you appear to understand what I am saying.

 

[Nessie]

I was coming to your point, but I had to nip out. I'm also aware I seem to have missed some of your other comments among the flurry.

So... No, of course their culture wouldn't collapse, and I have never suggested it would. My point is, it is their culture - can you tell me who or what gives us the mandate to police those elements of it that don't conform to our standards?

The same one that made us put an end to slavery in our own Western World. That saw serdom end in Russia. That meant campaigns against head hunting have worked to a high degree in China as imposed by the Chinese. Or how Sati was banned by the British in India in 1829, but even before that certain Indian rulers banned it from happening.

 

[joesixpack]

There is a Satanic presence who has been expressing understanding to the point of sympathy for honour killings and misrepresenting others such an aquatic monster by claiming they know nothing and want to force change by external measures.

Our societies have undergone huge changes for the better for women's rights and welfare in the past 50 years. Go further back and women had few rights and were their husbands property and would be disowned for a child out of wedlock, whilst the man got off scot free.

LOL @ "Satanic presence"

No, what the Great Satan and I are saying is that calling it an immoral act is a completely meaningless statement. It's like saying contracts and sales are invalid if not transacted under a full moon. Our definition of "morality" is based on our rather lax social structure. We all like it, but it's not the only one out there. There are much more rigid social structures with much greater emphasis on family and community cohesion. Likewise, their definition of "morality" is based on their social framework. You can't just jump in and pull one single item out without upsetting the entire applecart. A lot of things have to change in order for this one item to be excised. I would go on more, but I have to get the kids to school...back soon.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

The same one that made us put an end to slavery in our own Western World. That saw serdom end in Russia. That meant campaigns against head hunting have worked to a high degree in China as imposed by the Chinese. Or how Sati was banned by the British in India in 1829, but even before that certain Indian rulers banned it from happening.

No, you're not answering my question. Listing a series of historical events doesn't answer the question; who or what gives us the mandate to police elements of foreign cultures that don't meet our standards?

 

[Nessie]

Enough. Show me where I have expressed sympathy with regard to Honour Killings, or condoned them in any way, or withdraw that comment and apologise.



Your quote above this one demonstrates how little you appear to understand what I am saying.

You have been saying we have no right to interfere in the culture of honour killings. So honour killings will remain, unless that culture itself decides to change.

Considering how long such cultures have been going that seems very unlikely. The existing internal campaigns in those cultures to stop honour killings have only come about because of the influence of the West, as women have seen there is another way and they are not at fault when they glance at a boy or get raped by their brother. I have shown links to the UN and Oxfam supporting the campaigns in those cultures. I have found nothing of a campaign that sprang up without external influences.

So if you say leave them alone as we have no right or mandate, by doing so you say the honour killings will just have to continue.

Then you point out that in other ways their culture is acceptable, such as the duty of hospitality as if that further supports your argument not to interfere.

I say that is wrong and we should interfere, but only with the part that is clearly unacceptable no matter what they (as in the men rather than the women as they have no influence over what happens) think.

 

[Nessie]

LOL @ "Satanic presence"

No, what the Great Satan and I are saying is that calling it an immoral act is a completely meaningless statement. It's like saying contracts and sales are invalid if not transacted under a full moon. Our definition of "morality" is based on our rather lax social structure. We all like it, but it's not the only one out there. There are much more rigid social structures with much greater emphasis on family and community cohesion. Likewise, their definition of "morality" is based on their social framework. You can't just jump in and pull one single item out without upsetting the entire applecart. A lot of things have to change in order for this one item to be excised. I would go on more, but I have to get the kids to school...back soon.

I understand it is immoral to us and not to them. In any case there are very rigid social structures elsewhere in the world, including in the Middle East, where honour killings are not accepted.

We upset our own apple cart to the benefit of the whole of society by abolishing slavery. We recognised ourselves that it was wrong and did something about it. I do not see why we should wait around for those cultures who honour kill to do the same. It is called learning from your mistakes.

 

[Resume]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Believe it or not, it doesn't even bother me when people resort to Ad Homs and hot air because they've run out of argument, but can't bear to stop typing.

No, what bothers you are observations that disagree with your predetermined conclusion. You ought to consider them because I've discovered that when doing so, you often learn something.

I highly recommend it.

 

[Nessie]

No, you're not answering my question. Listing a series of historical events doesn't answer the question; who or what gives us the mandate to police elements of foreign cultures that don't meet our standards?

My point is that no one person or thing gives us the mandate. History has shown us that certain events and persons in the right place and time cause a tipping point where a society changes. Rather than wait to for that to happen in the likes of Afghanistan, we are right to take action to try and influence and cause that tipping point right now.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

You have been saying we have no right to interfere in the culture of honour killings. So honour killings will remain, unless that culture itself decides to change.

Considering how long such cultures have been going that seems very unlikely. The existing internal campaigns in those cultures to stop honour killings have only come about because of the influence of the West, as women have seen there is another way and they are not at fault when they glance at a boy or get raped by their brother. I have shown links to the UN and Oxfam supporting the campaigns in those cultures. I have found nothing of a campaign that sprang up without external influences.

So if you say leave them alone as we have no right or mandate, by doing so you say the honour killings will just have to continue.

So where was I showing sympathy?

Then you point out that in other ways their culture is acceptable, such as the duty of hospitality as if that further supports your argument not to interfere.

Please show me where I said any aspect of their culture was acceptable. I'll wait.

I used the duty of hospitality - and other examples - to show how deeply ingrained the concept of honour and reputation is in their culture; not to suggest that this is - or any aspect of their culture is - acceptable. Do you now understand?