• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another strange arrest in backwards Middle East

It wasn't just kissing; it was kissing, touching each other intimately, and drinking. If they were breaking a law, tough. I am not saying I agree with it, although the article never actually clarifies what they deem inappropriate touching. I can only speculate but the article only mentions kissing in the first paragraph, I suspect lean the reader into an opinion, before the facts. Either way, what they were doing is against Dubai laws, I really don't feel all that bad for them.
 
For most of my life me doing that with my partner in the UK would have been illegal and even today doing that would probably get me thrown out of many places along with a "good kicking" in many places however that doesn't lead me to have much sympathy for people who do not respect the laws of the country they are visiting.
 
Wow, it's moral equivalency galore.

sgtbaker said:
it, although the article never actually clarifies what they deem inappropriate touching.
Click to expand...

It's Dubai, just holding hands must be considered obscene over there. Or just walking side-by-side with a female.
 
Pardalis said:
Wow, it's moral equivalency galore.
Click to expand...

Not sure how but...

It's Dubai, just holding hands must be considered obscene over there. Or just walking side-by-side with a female.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how much you or a guest of the country likes the law; you don't get to go to another country and apply what's acceptable in yours. In some cultures, female genital mutiliation is considered the norm but if a father is caught doing that to his daughter in the US, he is going to jail for a violation of human rights.
BTW the article doesn't say "holding hands", it says
kissing and touching each other intimately in public -- violations of law against public indecency -- and consuming alcohol
Click to expand...
I suppose we can speculate all we want about what "touching intimately" really means, but without a proper definition all we can go on is; there is a law against what they were doing and they broke it.
 
Pardalis said:
Wow, it's moral equivalency galore.
Click to expand...

No, it's: when in Rome, do as the Romans.

Or let's do a Latin proverb: lex dura, sed lex.

It doesn't mean I (or sgtbaker) agree with the law.

PS. Don't go to the Middle East, Pardalis!
 
sgtbaker said:
Not sure how but...

It doesn't matter how much you or a guest of the country likes the law; you don't get to go to another country and apply what's acceptable in yours. In some cultures, female genital mutiliation is considered the norm but if a father is caught doing that to his daughter in the US, he is going to jail for a violation of human rights.
Click to expand...

And that is moral equivalency.
 
sgtbaker said:
Please explain how.
Click to expand...

If you can split your brain and accept what you would find unacceptable in any other circumstances because it's "their way", then fine, but it's a strange and possibly dangerous way of thinking.
 
Pardalis said:
I suggest Darat also doesn't go, prison is not the only thing that he might get.
Click to expand...

Or Darat just has better self-control over his actions in public than you have.

My two proverbs convinced you? No reaction to them...
 
Paridalis, I am not saying anything about agreeing with their laws, but if I disagree, I won't go. What I have no right to do is go there, behave as I would here, and then act shocked when I get arrested. I was not saying that FGM is the same as holding hands in public, I am pointing out that public affection is not tolerated there, so don't go there and do it, then cry foul when you get arrested. I had to go extreme because our society is considered lax on public behaviors and it's hard to find an equivilent law.
 
Pardalis said:
If you can split your brain and accept what you would find unacceptable in any other circumstances because it's "their way", then fine, but it's a strange and possibly dangerous way of thinking.
Click to expand...

They are not violating any human rights so I feel no urge to run and change that law. Their culture is traditionally more conservative than mine but it's not about what I find acceptable.
 
Pardalis said:
If you can split your brain and accept what you would find unacceptable in any other circumstances because it's "their way", then fine, but it's a strange and possibly dangerous way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Actually, some of us find it acceptible for ANY sovereign government to create its own laws and policies. Some of us find it acceptible under ANY circumstances for a person who plans to travel to another country (and the man had been there for some time) to learn the laws and customs of that country, and abide by them (assuming they aren't harmful).

That's not moral equivalency, that's a recognition that cultures differ and a recognition of national sovereignty. I personally don't agree with the law, but I also don't think it's that difficult to refrain from public displays of affection. The couple woul dnot have been harmed at all by learning and obeying the law.

Instead, they assumed that the laws of the country they were in somehow did not apply to them (or they simply didn't care enough to learn them).

That's not moral equivalency. This is not a morality issue, but a legality issue...and the fact that you can't seperate the two means you can place yourself in the same boat as right-wing Christian fundies who feel that we should legislate morality in the U.S.
 
So I'm a right-wing fundie because I find it strange that in 2010 a couple got arrested for kissing.

Great. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom