Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22

Thread: Wife-beating allowed under sharia law, UAE court rules

  1. #16
    Gold Member BigBen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Umm, since when does "not so bad" mean fuckall to anything? Do you think the women who get the shit beat out of them (as long as there are no marks!!!!) just walk it off, saying "oh that wasn't as bad as I expected! whew!"

    Bullshit. Fuck this.
    "Not only do we embrace it, we take it out for drinks, get it absolutely steaming drunk, leg hump it and then leave it covered in shaving foam and a stolen Chuck E Cheese outfit in its own bath with no recollection of how it got there." -Kittylady on the sad and pathetic and strange.

  2. #17
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    51,896

    Default

    i wrote an e-mail to the guardian asking what the legal reasons that prompted the entire removal of a news story were... i doubt i'll get a reply.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  3. #18
    Gold Member piperdiva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Hell Fire, SoCal
    Posts
    982

    Default

    And if these women are forced to wear burkas and stuff, who is going to see the marks anyway?
    Coffee is my happy drug

  4. #19
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiny Pixie View Post
    I understand what you mean, and at first, I had the same reaction, as I was expecting a lot worse judging from the title of the thread.
    However, abusing someone, though not "hard" enough as to leave marks is still too bad. What do we make of psychological abuse then? Doesn't leave marks ... is it not that bad then?
    It is bad. It is something that should not be tolerated. It is wrong. I was expecting something much worse, so 'not as bad' has more to do with what I was expecting-my expectations of the story.


    But on that note...If someone 'psychologically' abuses someone, and let's say also smacks them around leaving no marks(unnacceptable of course)... should they get the same punishment as someone who broke bones, poured acid on faces, set someone on fire?

    Is one 'still bad but not as bad' as the other? Should they get the same punishment/sentences then?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    general note:

    *And do not think for one minute that I am in 'defense mode' for any of these things, given my well know history on this board concerning these fundamentalist theocratic nations(of all religions) and especially given their generally wretched treatment of women and particularly gay people. mkay?

  5. #20
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Soj, I think there should be zero tolerance for any of it, particularly in the West.

    My influence on Middle Eastern society is nil. But much of it travels here, in the form of societal and religious ritual.

    Your parsing of the forms of abuse is valid, but I don't want any of it condoned as a religious exception in any country I live in.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  6. #21
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Soj, I think there should be zero tolerance for any of it, particularly in the West.

    My influence on Middle Eastern society is nil. But much of it travels here, in the form of societal and religious ritual.

    Your parsing of the forms of abuse is valid, but I don't want any of it condoned as a religious exception in any country I live in.
    zero tolerance is good-but it does not mean that two different things are equally bad. Bad, yes-we can agree on that. And yeah, the last thing I want is a step of any kind towards some kind of theocracy. You should not be able to hide human rights violations behind the cover of 'religious expression'.

    I guess I am saying I agree with your post?

  7. #22
    Elite Member sluce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Top Secret Spy for Leann Rimes
    Posts
    37,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    general note:

    *And do not think for one minute that I am in 'defense mode' for any of these things, given my well know history of wearing sparkly pink burkas while discussingthese fundamentalist theocratic nations(of all religions) and especially given their generally wretched treatment of women and particularly gay people. mkay?
    There Soj - I fixed it for you.
    You don't engage with crazies. Because they're, you know, fucking crazy. - WitchCurlGirl

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 4th, 2009, 12:55 AM
  2. India court rules gay sex legal
    By NicoleWasHere in forum News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2009, 06:34 PM
  3. Terrence Howard was once nabbed for beating his wife
    By Natee471 in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: February 21st, 2009, 03:57 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2008, 06:39 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: June 18th, 2007, 01:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •