Woman lops off man?s nose for harassing her

[RandomWords]

As long as no balls were harmed...

 

[Booze Zombie]

She doesn't even know any Muslims personally. She is just an attention whore who post for the sake of posting.

Pardon my... butting in, I suppose you'd call it, but how does knowing a Muslim do anything except give you anecdotal evidence to work with?
It may not be nice, but there's a reason people going "oh yeah, my two friends and some of their friends..." aren't really getting all that far outside of casual conversations.

 

[Gigano]

-snip-

Oh:
Also homosexuals are executed in Islamic influenced nations

Those homosexuals, knowing how some Islamic countries are not ready for those drastic changes considering the state of their countries, should have done something sensible, keep it to themselves, find others like themselves, slowly but surely work to make sure their families understand their decisions and accept it. Then work on to change how their community view homosexuality.

It might sounds like a defeatist tactic, but it payoffs when the environment they are within changes with time.

"hey, abdul you didn't get married?" "hey, abdul why do you live with Osama?"

"Osama is just my buddy, pa!"

Excuses, they work sometimes.

I will assume that the "blame the victims"-vibe of that post is not intentional...

While your suggestion may be tactically sound - for those "inconspicuous" gay people who're not found out and dragged in by the police (of vice & virtue...) anyway - it still does not change the fact that this aspect of "Islam" - and the other Abrahamic religions, which've largely, if somewhat dishonestly, worked around it though - is in direct and gross violation of basic human rights & decency, and should be relentlessly criticised and condemned as such.

Their poor state is an explanation, not an excuse. It is the behaviour of criminal illegitimate regimes, and these aspects (only) should be called out as such - by "Muslims" who disagree with it as well - at any given chance; excepting of course diplomatic relations, where smooth-talking, ideological restraint, specific positive focuses, and even accepting half-truths is appropriate as common sense means to achieve a greater good.

Any government, organization, or individual which persecute members of innocent groups deserve no better treatment themselves as far as I'm concerned; for the individuals barring of course violations of their own human rights. Such entities has proven, not only in label, but in actions as well, to be unworthy of any respect and lacking in any kind of decency and civility. And while many Muslims, quite likely a large majority, do not actively discriminate against any innocent group (though they do not do much to actively change the dogmas of the religion either...), you're seemingly half-defending regimes that does.

Why not stick to defending those many moderate Muslims and Muslim organisations which do not persecute innocent minorities, and argue their cause? Surely it is the voice of this lamentably silent majority which need to be heard more than anything else, yet you call bigotry on the entirety of what - regardless of source - is also perfectly due criticism & condemnation of human rights violating regimes executing gay people???

I humbly suggest a(n even) more moderate position, less inclusive of human rights violations and their perpetrators. It would strengthen your cause - a fight against the many undue prejudices against (the moderate sects of) Islam & (the moderate majority of) Muslims if I'm not mistaken - considerably.

 

[cainx10a]

She doesn't even know any Muslims personally. She is just an attention whore who post for the sake of posting.

Pardon my... butting in, I suppose you'd call it, but how does knowing a Muslim do anything except give you anecdotal evidence to work with?
It may not be nice, but there's a reason people going "oh yeah, my two friends and some of their friends..." aren't really getting all that far outside of casual conversations.

My point is: I don't question or talk about what a Christian or a Jewish family do in their own household if I don't know 'jack shit' about them; and most of the information one could get, would be from what the mainstream media since the majority of content might be tailor made to a certain extent for christian viewers - Mexican/Brazilian family dramas anyone? (obviously, that's more common to find here on TV - I never watched Little Mosque on the Prairie, so maybe that can help people who don't know a lot about Muslims.).

Anecdotal evidence on the other, if I personally know and experience what my hindu friends' family do: going on random excursions for example, it helps support in a conversation about how a hindu family operate, even better when you referencing more than one.

Condemning an entire culture, and how their families operate based on your preconception of it seems silly. Sure it's an opinion, but it sure as hell doesn't cut it.

Spoiler

-snip-

Oh:
Also homosexuals are executed in Islamic influenced nations

Those homosexuals, knowing how some Islamic countries are not ready for those drastic changes considering the state of their countries, should have done something sensible, keep it to themselves, find others like themselves, slowly but surely work to make sure their families understand their decisions and accept it. Then work on to change how their community view homosexuality.

It might sounds like a defeatist tactic, but it payoffs when the environment they are within changes with time.

"hey, abdul you didn't get married?" "hey, abdul why do you live with Osama?"

"Osama is just my buddy, pa!"

Excuses, they work sometimes.

I will assume that the "blame the victims"-vibe of that post is not intentional...

While your suggestion may be tactically sound - for those "inconspicuous" gay people who're not found out and dragged in by the police (of vice & virtue...) anyway - it still does not change the fact that this aspect of "Islam" - and the other Abrahamic religions, which've largely, if somewhat dishonestly, worked around it though - is in direct and gross violation of basic human rights & decency, and should be relentlessly criticised and condemned as such.

Their poor state is an explanation, not an excuse. It is the behaviour of criminal illegitimate regimes, and these aspects (only) should be called out as such - by "Muslims" who disagree with it as well - at any given chance; excepting of course diplomatic relations, where smooth-talking, ideological restraint, specific positive focuses, and even accepting half-truths is appropriate as common sense means to achieve a greater good.

Any government, organization, or individual which persecute members of innocent groups deserve no better treatment themselves as far as I'm concerned; for the individuals barring of course violations of their own human rights. Such entities has proven, not only in label, but in actions as well, to be unworthy of any respect and lacking in any kind of decency and civility. And while many Muslims, quite likely a large majority, do not actively discriminate against any innocent group (though they do not do much to actively change the dogmas of the religion either...), you're seemingly half-defending regimes that does.

Why not stick to defending those many moderate Muslims and Muslim organisations which do not persecute innocent minorities, and argue their cause? Surely it is the voice of this lamentably silent majority which need to be heard more than anything else, yet you call bigotry on the entirety of what - regardless of source - is also perfectly due criticism & condemnation of human rights violating regimes executing gay people???

I humbly suggest a(n even) more moderate position, less inclusive of human rights violations and their perpetrators. It would strengthen your cause - a fight against the many undue prejudices against (the moderate sects of) Islam & (the moderate majority of) Muslims if I'm not mistaken - considerably.

I had to change my original post multiple times to make it look less offending, and that was mainly on a point of view I had for a while about middle-eastern homosexuals or homosexuals in any country whereby they could be hurt if their sexuality was questioned.

I must admit that I was not trying to defend any of the regime there, my point is that the biggest support you get is always from your immediate surrounding, family first, friends second. And it's totally awful that most parents might probably not support it and get a tantrum revolving about how their honor was stained or some shit like that (I don't have anything to back that really, just a wild guess at older people being more religious and conservative), and if obviously, you are trying to hide something, it's probably going to be harder to find others who share your opinions on the subject matter or who wants to actively help you. Like I was saying it was a half-ass solution, and that really was not the focus of my argument, but for the sake of defending my position I guess I ventured in a mine field.

To cut it short, Islam position on Homosexuality in those countries is awful but change doesn't always come immediately at the request of other countries who themselves took a while to implement it, it takes time as well as the country itself improving in various societal ways, and those changes probably could occur faster in countries with "moderates" muslims: which I think are mainly Muslims in western countries, and Turkey > . > who are not ruled by some despot. Most likely it could start here in the west since at the end of the day, any muslims here is probably still on the "kafir" list for Osama and co.

Also, I was not really calling bigotry on just that point. Obviously, treatment of Homosexuality is a major issue, but those other points (my main focus in the argument) seriously don't cut it out:


----
-- About dem Muzzies Families
DT "the case mentioned in the OP decribes how their families work"
followed by
DT "You're taking what I said out of context, disregarding that, the vast amjority of their families do act very much like the case in the OP"
(she answered that after I described how a supposedly stereotypical family works (according to my understanding of her version))
an the epic conclusion
DT "They act perfectly fine "over here" because their ways are frowned upon.
I would not reccomend going to their home nations with them."

Seriously, muslim families in their home countries make gangstas look like toddlers, I seen it, I survived a drive-by from a bunch of angry Muslim grandmothers and their trusty ak-47s, they missed (or I wouldn't be here to tell the tale). I was sucker punched by a muslim baby wearing a turban, they are obviously indoctrinated from a young age to hurt, maim and kill.

-- dem enslaved muzzies women
DT "The women defend it and put up with it due to indocrination"
(again, Muslim women are more visible when they are trying to bridge relations with other cultures in the west considering the usual "Oh why do you wear an hijab?" or some other BS like that. And that's just from mainstream media (at least I mainly uses CNN) too.

(not only is she exaggerating, but she is jumping all over the place, treatment of women in Iraq vastly differs from that in Afghanistan (ok, I admit, the taliban and saudi are pretty close) to that in Saudi Arabia to that in Pakistan (which as far as I can tell from experience, seems to be the most liberal of the 4 ... that and Turkey)). And if anything, in Iraq, it only deteriorated partly thanks a certain war.


-- dem gits
Also you mention about a silent majority that needs to be heard, but does any media focus on Iman X holding conventions (I'm assuming the anti-terror camp will vastly cover these topics ) to help muslims youth stay away from getting on the bad road of "go to pakistan to train to fight evil men who are hurting mah people and completely ignore the luck we had in being born or having immigrated to a country where our chances of survival and success is what we make of it"? These are probably not "news worthy" to remain in the spotlight.

Although I think it's laughable to have "Moderate" Muslims hold rally to voice their opinions against terrorism as if, muslims who even come here in the west have some sort of magical connection to each other to have more than a million out on the street to say "No to terrorism!" and what exactly will that change?. People who hates muslim guts will probably say it was all a facade, to masquerade their true intention.

My point, Muslims are hardly united under a single banner in the west, there is no single Org that can speak out for all of those 'silent' majority.

That's as much as I know. And if you must really know why I consider myself a 'stakeholder' in this whole affair, I could probably tell you over PM.




--- Some stuff I guess would be easier to read here ---
Moderate Muslims: I think they should just be referred to as Muslims.

(I hate that term, and to give you a short version of what I hate it, well, it's almost as if there are muslims and moderate muslims, and one of them is the 'bad' muslim, or like I was saying to someone else, it's a rating how much muslim a muslim is, 50% muslim, "ok he ain't dangerous, next!")

Regime Change from illegitimate despot to something more 'moderate' - (and regime change is a totally different topic, I can't see how a regime change which is much needed in a place like Saudi Arabia could go well, the US supports whoever is in charge over there, despite their lack of concern for their people)

 

[similar.squirrel]

Should have kept it out of other people's business. Apparently other people's business now comes equipped with blades.

I'd have to agree with Demented Teddy on this one issue, but would also like to point out that this radicalised Islam is a fairly new phenomenon.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Until I hear both sides of the story I refuse to have an opinion on this.

 

[Platti]

I'm loving the sweeping generalisations being tossed about. Keep it up.

Onto the actual subject: No I don't think it was justified, but I don't live where she lives and I'm not female. When I am reincarnated as a woman from the middle-east and had the same upbringing as she's had I'll be able to comment more accurately on whether what she did was perfectly in the right or not.

That's my tuppence. Carry on with calling each other racist bigots, because it makes the rest of us swoon with delight at your intellectual shit-flinging contest. It really does.

 

[Gigano]

...
I had to change my original post multiple times to make it look less offending, and that was mainly on a point of view I had for a while about middle-eastern homosexuals or homosexuals in any country whereby they could be hurt if their sexuality was questioned.

I must admit that I was not trying to defend any of the regime there (and regime change is a totally different topic, I can't see how a regime change which is much needed in a place like Saudi Arabia could go well, the US supports whoever is in charge over there, despite their lack of concern for their people), my point is that the biggest support you get is always from your immediate surrounding, family first, friends second. And it's totally awful that most parents might probably not support it and get a tantrum revolving about how their honor was stained or some shit like that (I don't have anything to back that really, just a wild guess at older people being more religious and conservative), and if obviously, you are trying to hide something, it's probably going to be harder to find others who share your opinions on the subject matter or who wants to actively help you. Like I was saying it was a half-ass solution, and that really was not the focus of my argument, but for the sake of defending my position I guess I ventured in a mine field.

I think your posts definitely came out wrong in these respects.

To cut it short, Islam position on Homosexuality in those countries is awful but change doesn't always come immediately at the request of other countries who themselves took a while to implement it, it takes time as well as the country itself improving in various societal ways, and those changes probably could occur faster in countries with "moderates" muslims: which I think are mainly Muslims in western countries, and Turkey > . >

Realisticly, it will take quite a while, but that doesn't mean that one should just be silent about the mistreatment of various minorities during that while. As I wrote, diplomatic relations needn't focus on these particular aspects insofar as not doing so will be beneficial to the development of greater human rights adherence, but they should definitely be able to be discussed - and condemned - between individuals who find them , on national and international levels.

(I hate that term, and to give you a short version of what I hate it, well, it's almost as if there are muslims and moderate muslims, and one of them is the 'bad' muslim, or like I was saying to someone else, it's a rating how much muslim a muslim is, 50% muslim, "ok he ain't dangerous, next!") who are not ruled by some despot. Most likely it could start here in the west since at the end of the day, any muslims here is probably still on the "kafir" list for Osama and co.

Given my legalistic, literalist, originalist stance on what conceptually constitute "religion" (I define it as "shared dogmas on an absolutist inseparable system of beliefs"), we'll have disagree on that one. I consider the "100 % truly religious" to be absolutist dogmatic fundamentalists/literalists, and consider them highly unethical at best. They are rare though.

Also, I was not really calling bigotry on just that point. Obviously, treatment of Homosexuality is a major issue, but those other points (my main focus in the argument) seriously don't cut it out:

Snipped

I weren't saying the other stuff wasn't unreasonable, and made sure to word by post to get that across ("on the entirety of", "regardless of stance", "also"). The homosexuality thing was a due criticism and condemnation though.

Also you mention about a silent majority that needs to be heard, but does any media focus on Iman X holding conventions (I'm assuming the anti-terror camp will vastly cover these topics ) to help muslims youth stay away from getting on the bad road of "go to pakistan to train to fight evil men who are hurting mah people and completely ignore the luck we had in being born or having immigrated to a country where our chances of survival and success is what we make of it"? These are probably not "news worthy" to remain in the spotlight.

Yes, the "tabloid" dominance in all current media does seem to focus on conflict, making it hard for these voices to be heard. With forums like this one though, any Muslim can give his/her personal view, and in the face of the dogmas associated with Islam definitely should.

Although I think it's laughable to have "Moderate" Muslims hold rally to voice their opinions against terrorism as if, muslims who even come here in the west have some sort of magical connection to each other to have more than a million out on the street to say "No to terrorism!" and what exactly will that change?. People who hates muslim guts will probably say it was all a facade, to masquerade their true intention.

My point, Muslims are hardly united under a single banner in the west, there is no single Org that can speak out for all of those 'silent' majority.

People who are undecided about Muslims might see such gesture differently though. And if all one is given is the quran and hadiths, like other "holy" scriptures containing those very nasty pieces on gay people etc., to learn about what being Muslim means, then I'm afraid their image will not be a pleasant one.

Thus there is need for moderate Muslims to speak up, and disavow these persecutory aspects - and only them - of the religion, and if no organisation exist, then each individual Muslim must take on that responsibility upon him/herself, and qualify his/her personal views. If they do not wish to be identified with what the quran and hadith says on gay people etc, then I'm afraid the burden of proof is theirs due to selflabeling with those texts, and the lack of familiarity with "Muslims" beyond those texts in the western world. Had westerners not been intensely familiar with "Christians", and known them from their daily lives rather than only from what the bible say, then "Christians" would have a very hard time here as well, given what horrors the bible also contain.

As I always say; label yourself with care. Especially in an increasingly polarized world where labels matter more and more.

That's as much as I know. And if you must really know why I consider myself a 'stakeholder' in this whole affair, I could probably tell you over PM.

You certainly don't have to tell me or anyone else if you'd rather not. Personal interests in a matter need no arguments to exist - mine is purely ideological - only the debate itself does. If you feel like it though, I'll of course gladly hear you out through a PM.

 

[Emissary Laito]

Jailed? You're much too kind. Lock them up with chains in an X possession and preform brutal torture methods on them. Milk and Blood (best done with some prostitute's HIV/AIDS infected blood) injections to the eyes, feeding them themselves and more.

Well, that's certainly a disturbing viewpoint.
You haven't even heard both sides of the story.
And even if it turns out to be entirely true, that's a pretty sadistic thing to say.

I sincerely hope that you're never placed in a position in which you can make decisions like this so easily.

 

[AquaAscension]

Okay, for those who may have missed the similarity between this incident and a certain cover of a popular "news" magazine recently, I'm going to point it out. This is just a bit of a reversal here, in fact, it's an interesting reversal in a lot of ways, and I find a couple of things interesting here.

The first thing I find interesting is that even though the man never actually harmed her, and she caused permanent damage to him, he's still the bad guy. If the situation was reversed, would people be saying it was justified? Or would the mere SUGGESTION that it was justified be called sexist?

Second, all we hear is from her. We never hear from the guy, we're not getting the whole story. For all we know, she started it. We don't know, and the information is not given. She responded incorrectly to the situation out of all proportion. This fact alone suggests that she's not altogether stable.

Here's the problem I'm having with the modern sex dynamics (I avoid the term 'gender' as I've had people argue with me over what that means). In the narrative of sex politics, men are always the villains, women are always the pure angels incapable of doing any wrong. This has been repeated ad nauseum for at least twenty years, and I'm calling it now. The problem with the modern view of the sexes is that it states that women are better than men, but men dominate women. This is nonsensical, and stupid. If women were in every way superior to men as we are led to believe (or at least equal in every way) how did men dominate them? I mean, the greater physical strength of men? This can't exist (according to the modern view of the sexes) because women are equal in every respect to men. For men to dominate women to the degree that they supposedly do, they would have to have some inherent advantage. The entire theory upon which the feminist theory of history is flawed, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

I challenge you to prove you read the article. You're missing a lot of critical facts in your defense of this man based on an Americanized definition of the term "feminism" and "equality". These concepts don't yet exist in the middle east. There is a concept called honor killing over there that was ended in our Anglo-Saxon ancestors' culture very early on. This idea of honor killing is that if someone in your family does something to my family, I have to take revenge which leads to your family taking revenge and pretty soon you get a familicide situation. So, that practice was outlawed when a ruler introduced the weregeld (literally translated as "man gold" a practice in which you'd pay money to stop the blood shed). Now this honor killing practice also happens in the middle east; however, it was supposedly outlawed by the Quran. And technically, it was. Unfortunately, rather than completely obey the law when it comes to women, rather than taking revenge on another man for stripping your family of its honor (read premarital sex), the girl/woman in question is simply killed by her own family. With the girl dead, honor is restored in the most twisted logic possible.

It's not uncommon for this practice to happen either in the middle east. It may be illegal to get a divorce, but the law is sketchier about being a widower, and some men will actually kill their wives in order to marry someone else. It's not divorce, which is frowned upon in the religion, but killing a woman instead somehow isn't.

I'm sorry you feel that the current feminist movement is incorrect, and I admit that it has its flaws, but it's a hell of a lot better than treatment women have historically been receiving. For a glimpse of that treatment, look at the middle eastern culture.

OT: because of the danger outlined above due to the practice of honor killing, this woman was entirely justified.

 

[Actual]

*snip*

You really shouldn't go and feed trolls like that. I realize some people are stupid enough to believe things like what he posted, but if nothing else, his username should have been a dead give away. "Civilized" is spelled with a Z.

Back to the OP, sounds like a case of good old fashioned frontier justice to me. Cutting off the nose seems a bit arbitrary though, she probably could have just killed him or cut off something more important if she had him subdued enough to do that.

Apologies for the troll feeding, I though he might have had a reasonable explanation. I'll be more careful.

I suppose chopping of his lips would have made sense as it was rumours he was threatening her with. But I guess his nose was just easier to reach.

Civilised is spelt with an 's', the 'z' is the U.S. variant.

 

[Stoic raptor]

God damn.
Can't we comment on peoples actions without commenting on their religion or their country or their stereotypes or their culture?
The Escapist deserves better than that.

On Topic: He did deserve to lose his nose, but she probably shouldn't have done that.

She was being beaten at home because her parents believed the rumors were true. He should be grateful she only got as far as his face. But that wouldn't have happend if the society she's living in was so fucking backward. I'm not going to blame this on religion or country, but this kind of thing just plays into the stereotype. I can't stand people who who are so god dam stupid and horrible to each other,No mater where they are from!

I don't think you understood. Yes, he did deserve it, but I only see things getting worse because of it. If her life does get better because of it, I will take it back.

 

[Judgement101]

If she's fearing for her life cause of this dickbear, I'd have gone a whole lot further than nose...

Lol, dickbear.

OT:Jail for ALL!

 

[Ekonk]

le schnipp

Hell yes to the shit yes,brother.

Also, the prick got what he deserved. He'll miss his nose, of course, but let's all hope he sees reason now.

 

[JWW]

It could have been worse, it might have been more than a nose...

 

[Stoic raptor]

God damn.
Can't we comment on peoples actions without commenting on their religion or their country or their stereotypes or their culture?
The Escapist deserves better than that.

On Topic: He did deserve to lose his nose, but she probably shouldn't have done that.

She was being beaten at home because her parents believed the rumors were true. He should be grateful she only got as far as his face. But that wouldn't have happend if the society she's living in was so fucking backward. I'm not going to blame this on religion or country, but this kind of thing just plays into the stereotype. I can't stand people who who are so god dam stupid and horrible to each other,No mater where they are from!

I don't think you understood. Yes, he did deserve it, but I only see things getting worse because of it. If her life does get better because of it, I will take it back.

Understood, I just wanted to make it clear I wasn't being a bigot. Honestly though, she's probably screwed. At least this way she got the satisfaction of punishing her tormentor (One of them)

Yes, these do play into stereotypes so easily. But the escapist community cannot handle it.
These last four pages is just one big inferno.

 

[ArcWinter]

Nose? Eh, I dunno. I'd go with castration, it makes more sense in "eye-for-an-eye" thinking.

No, but seriously, violence is bad and is never justified except in self-defense. I would count this as self-defense however. And the kid can survive without a nose, he'll be fine.

I would just like to stop for a second and point out one thing.
You, are in Ireland... Think about that for a second before you go calling other places backwards or a joke.
Going by your statements chances are you know absolutely nothing about their culture other then the occasional snippet like this that you see yet you, being in fucking Ireland of all places, decide to run your mouth at how backwards these people are.

Just stop and think for a second about how the rest of the world perceives your people.

Seriously people, this over the top, mindless, arrogant and fucking stupid attitude of insulting an entire country just because of a few incidents that you happen to hear occurred in this place disgusts me.
Furthermore it annoys me since as a westerner the arrogance, stupidity and overwhelming intolerance of such people pisses me off since I inevitably get lumped in with them.
Then these fools have the fucking gall to go on about how accepting they are of others because they support gay marriage.

I am intolerant of intolerance. Does this make me intolerant?
See, if a society allows and promotes people infringing on other people's rights, then it is, as a definition, backward. (The purpose of society being that a community or communities can live together peacefully)

I'm not agreeing with Teddy, as you've said, I've never been there. BUT I don't go there because I would not want to. And by there, I do not mean the country. I mean the parts of the world that accepts such a society as unjust as this. Which are not confined to places like Pakistan, but are in America as well.

im not sure if this makes sense anymore but it probably does

 

[Woodsey]

And people wonder why I refuse to tolorate Islam's backwards "culture"....

1) An ellipsis is "..." (this irritates me far more than it should)

2) This is Islam's Catholocism, so to speak. Of course, I know you wouldn't be ignorant enough to tarnish all Muslim's with such a brush; most fall into the "moderate" category, and these are the Muslims we see (for the most part) across the globe.