In movies and books, especially cheap older paperbacks, usually the author would want to trump up his characters' traits, but would not know all that much about them. He may be writing a spy novel - it's a fair shot that he wouldn't know much about spying, or state of the art surveillance equipment; he probably wouldn't know much about assassins or bomb experts, or political machinations in several disparate countries, or what it takes to be a persuasive and charismatic political leader.

Therefore, instead of showing actual skill or knowledge about these fields and traits, he takes all of them backstage and has the other characters hype up their deeds. Usually this is fine for like physical acts, but when it's a character trait like the persuasive and charismatic political leader and that character needs to be on all the time, it's really noticeable that he isn't.

Do you know what I'm trying to say? I'm saying that, next time you get into an internet fight, don't decide halfway through an opus of a post that you suddenly don't care, and then continue posting about it.

Tell me more about how little you care in 10,000 words or less.

also laughing at your sig

you have the same characterization as a Mary-Sue character

See you misunderstood me, I really don't care about the case. This, in fact, is my care cup \_/s

See, it's empty.

The only thing I wished to point out is the blatant lack of facts from the CNN article. You know where I found that other article? By searching for "rape lashes" on the CNN site.

And hell, I'm at work, it's a quiet day, gotta do something to pass the time :)

MSWord seems to think the above is about 75 words, bit lacking from your target of 10k eigh?

And laughing at my sig eigh? Well the world is a better place now that you're amused.... ¬_¬

You counted your last post's wordcount to prove a point to me.

The point proven is not that you're too aloof to care.

I didn't count it, Microsoft Word did. I simply, like previously, passed on the information.

So Chiribo, what's it like to be a misogynistic troglodyte who accuses women of deserving lashes for supposed affairs? I bet it's pretty great. I mean, the hating women part must not be so grand, but it's like you've got your own little world.

fxd

ITT people jump at the throat of neutral people who value accuracy.

FAIR AND BALANCED

This is what set up this whole joke of a debate, if you did'nt notice.

lying whore of a wife

neutral people who value accuracy

lying whore of a wife

neutral people who value accuracy

lying whore of a wife

neutral people who value accuracy

lying whore of a wife

neutral people who value accuracy



Oh, my bad, you define what your stance is in your first post. Everything after that is to be ignored.

lying whore of a wife jesus christ you frognigger

haha is this Foxnews

Slam the right keywords all you want, it still doesn't change the fact you're deeply intellectually dishonest and full of shit.

You're one to talk about keywords, when the only thing the guy said that approached neutral was that the thread's title was inflammatory.

Oh well, you think Islam is different than Christianity because people can twist Islam to evil purposes, where Christianity is a solid bedrock of time-proven scripture. whatev~

lying whore of a wife is the new accuracy

Bradylama, feels good thanks. Ohh by the way, read my previous posts. Where I indicate just how much I think she should be lashed. I think you missed something there... but who am I to say that, a So, lurker, you say "lying, cheating wife" I say "lying whore of a wife".

What's the problem exactly? I was marely providing a summary of alleged events so far. You'd rather I bash Islam and forget the wife ever allegedly cheated?

I love it. People pretending to care. It's like fruit being rotten before it falls from the tree. You wonder what the smell is and then you decide not to picnic under it. Don't mind me. I had raw broccoli and a few shots of rum for breakfast. I am scum of the earth.

To be honest, yes. I would much rather that you bash Islam instead of acting like somebody deserved to be whipped for cheating.

Like I said, I never said that I think she deserved a whipping, I said that that's a fucked up.
What I did say was that she knew what she was getting herself into. She must've known the law and its consequences.

Look at it from this way: If I was caught driving 100mph on a 30mph road and made a fuss about loosing my driving license because of it, all of you would say that I knew the law and what I would have to endure as punishment and to shut the fuck up.

There's no problem here, I was just saying you're wrong and have no capacity for critical thought. Then you went on about how your sippy cup was too full of guran lagaan episodes for you to think about anything else, and I lost interest at that point because I don't like dealing with adult babies.

So I lack critical thought because I provided a summary of the various news stories... Okay...

=

?

Credibility lost forever.

Oh wait it was already when you called me a racist over it. Intellectual dishonesty and immaturity now ? tsk tsk

I'm not going to waste much energy on this thread of insults, so here's a short summary of my perspective:

Yes, the article was factually incomplete. But whether the wife was having an affair or not remains unclear. What we know is that she was with another man. This is illegal there (whether it should be or not), so we may assume that she knew she was committing an offence (although it is a ridiculous offence in my eyes).

What surprises me is the change of opinion this produced in some posters here. She met with a man who wasn't a husband, and possibly had an affair with him, so she deserves to be abducted, raped, and then lashed for it?! And people say Islam is backwards in its views...!

The fact that she was meeting with another man had nothing to do with the rape. If she had been alone, she would have been even easier to abduct. Does one offence justify the other, much more severe one? Or does the injustce rather lie in the act of victim-blaming for rape itself? Or in the fact that women are repressed?

I would say it's a combination of all of these, but that this is not necessarily a direct consequence of the Islamic religion as such. Islam in Germany is different from Islam in urban Turkey, which is different from Islam in rural Turkey, which is different from Islam in Saudi Arabia...Religions do not develop independently; they are a product of the social context. In this case, it is the product of a highly stratified society, where some are immensely rich due to oil, a wealth that was acquired over a relatively short period of time, and the rest very poor. This social stratification extends to every area, including the family, where it is produced according to gender and age.

Consider the industrialisation period in Western Europe (factory owners and the proletariat, etc.), which didn't lead to anything that extreme, but still included a similar hierarchy, with female workers getting hardly any pay in the factories, and raising children at the same time, children being exploited even more in the factories with even less protection from accidents and death, etc. Then look at the sexual moral of the middle class at that time, the strict Victorian rules of conduct for women.

Rather than bashing a whole religion, we should perhaps consider where these views originated, and look to change the social conditions which produced them, and question our own perceived moral superiority.

I think that just with the flawed topic title alone, the TC just opened the floodgates for insults to be thrown left right and center at "primitive middle-east". Before a few thoughtful posts came in (like the one prior from Traveller87), which began scrutinizing the historical and cultural context behind the laws in the Kingdom, the TC with the ludicrous title, helped shape the argument by setting the agenda according to his/her own terms. Obviously the lashes weren't prescribed because of her getting raped (I still think they were for a ludicrous reason but that's where the ultra-conservative laws come in) - but the TC helped to spur some of the contempt that was to follow from fellow posters by giving such a hate-filled opinion to start off with.


In doing so tried he (purposefully or not) reinforced some closed-minded individuals' stereotypes and fears about a nation already under fire from an already biased media.