8-year-old girl's marriage ruled legal

[Scott T]

and therein lies the issue, at least MY issue anyway.

WHY does anyone need to add on an "explanation, exposition, and what not."???

Why the need to add conditional modifiers?

Why not just say "thats wrong"?

Because people need qualifiers to make a decision in this grey world. As you have just proven with this:

If it was an arranged marraige between two 8 year olds, i wouldnt mind that much, since arranged marraige, while not for me, isnt essentially bad.

You completely reversed prior apparent denunciation of all arranged marriages on the thread by placing qualifying conditions where arranged marriages aren't evil, while earlier you were accusing others of 'moral relativism'.

Now that you added this last part, your position is a hell of a lot easier to understand.

That's why 'Just because' is a dangerous rationalization...

"Just because" pissed me off when my mother said it, and it pisses me off now. No, strike that. It just annoys me.

You too, huh.

 

[Archangel M]

If you cant see the difference between an arranged marriage between children and selling an 8yo to a 40+ yo man to repay a debt...well I dont know how we can discuss the issue.

 

[Scott T]

In a written medium, where you can't hear inflections and see body language, it's dangerous to assume meaning in a position that is unclear.

Now that Twin Fist made his position clear with his caveat rather than his former apparent position of being against all arranged marriages 'Just because', I can honestly say that I agree with him and his position 100%.

 

[Sukerkin]

...I don't know....

Do you think a country-sized sheet of glass would be a cool landmark? Ya know...kinda like the Great Wall or the Pyramids...

That would probably reflect heat really bad though, and contribute to global warming....

Oh well...so much for that plan. :moon:

Okay, who leaked the Beardmore Plan?! :lol:.

In my much younger, more reactionary and less compassionate days, when I hadn't fully learned just how interlinked and complicated things are, I used to, every now and then, trot out the (not serious) idea that a lot of the worlds political and religious conflicts would be eased by a rolling nuclear barrage across most of Africa and the Middle East.

The banner line "Nuke the Middle East into a sea of glass - we can still get at the oil when it's all cooled down some!" used to spark some very revealing discussions and arguments.

Amongst these discourses what was often raised was that the people of those nations are just as human as we are and are no more culpable than we in the way that their countries politics and religions are structured. If they weren't sitting on top of a mass of oil that is of economic interest to other nations then they wouldn't have become the focus of the turmoil they have - indeed they wouldn't have become countries if it wasn't for our (the British) involvement.

Some of the counters to this ran similar to some things we've read in this thread so far i.e. that they don't think like us/they have no sense of honour/they have no sense of morality/their religion makes them hate all who do not follow their faith ...

Now I'm talking about debates amidst well educated people (my class mates during my first foray into university-land) being carried out in the early '80's - some whilst the Falklands war was on and some when one of my class-mates had been recalled back to Israel to retake his position as a tank commander.

It is distressing that the same problems of distrust and hatred are still there thirty years on. Likewise, it is distressing that there is no sign that the country that is the specific target of the OP has yet reached it's equivalent of the Enlightenment.

Until it does, all our outrage at what goes on under their laws, inside their borders, will make little difference. After all, they know they have something we want and that makes them fairly immune to pressure to change their culture to suit us. Which is a great pity as, from what I have read of that country and the way that daily life is conducted, it is one that we should be ashamed to count as an ally.

After all, the arranged (hopefully non-consummated) marriage of a little girl, against the wishes of her mother, is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Carol]

Bob,
YOu asked "where is the outrage over child brodes in india"
I have a problem with forced marraige of a child, WHERE EVER it happens, but this article wasnt about india or thailand. It was about an incident in Saudi. So THAT particular incident is being expressed.

The story also has the legs that it does because of where it happened, and all the current event connections to it - terror, dependence on foreign oil, etc. I don't think its just the Islamic slant to the story...had something like this occurred amongst the Muslims in (say) Suriname - I'm not sure if this would have even made the U.S. media.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Okay, who leaked the Beardmore Plan?! :lol:.

In my much younger, more reactionary and less compassionate days, when I hadn't fully learned just how interlinked and complicated things are, I used to, every now and then, trot out the (not serious) idea that a lot of the worlds political and religious conflicts would be eased by a rolling nuclear barrage across most of Africa and the Middle East.

The banner line "Nuke the Middle East into a sea of glass - we can still get at the oil when it's all cooled down some!" used to spark some very revealing discussions and arguments.

Amongst these discourses what was often raised was that the people of those nations are just as human as we are and are no more culpable than we in the way that their countries politics and religions are structured. If they weren't sitting on top of a mass of oil that is of economic interest to other nations then they wouldn't have become the focus of the turmoil they have - indeed they wouldn't have become countries if it wasn't for our (the British) involvement.

Some of the counters to this ran similar to some things we've read in this thread so far i.e. that they don't think like us/they have no sense of honour/they have no sense of morality/their religion makes them hate all who do not follow their faith ...

Now I'm talking about debates amidst well educated people (my class mates during my first foray into university-land) being carried out in the early '80's - some whilst the Falklands war was on and some when one of my class-mates had been recalled back to Israel to retake his position as a tank commander.

It is distressing that the same problems of distrust and hatred are still there thirty years on. Likewise, it is distressing that there is no sign that the country that is the specific target of the OP has yet reached it's equivalent of the Enlightenment.

Until it does, all our outrage at what goes on under their laws, inside their borders, will make little difference. After all, they know they have something we want and that makes them fairly immune to pressure to change their culture to suit us. Which is a great pity as, from what I have read of that country and the way that daily life is conducted, it is one that we should be ashamed to count as an ally.

After all, the arranged (hopefully non-consummated) marriage of a little girl, against the wishes of her mother, is just the tip of the iceberg.

I suppose that whole "inability to denote inflections and body language" thing resulted in the loss of "sarcasm" in my post. LOL

The story also has the legs that it does because of where it happened, and all the current event connections to it - terror, dependence on foreign oil, etc. I don't think its just the Islamic slant to the story...had something like this occurred amongst the Muslims in (say) Suriname - I'm not sure if this would have even made the U.S. media.

I'm sure it happens a lot and "yes" is probably rarely reported....kinda like that whole female castration thing. (fyi: more sarcasm to denote the ridiculousnous of the priorities of Western Foreign Policy)

 

[Scott T]

I suppose that whole "inability to denote inflections and body language" thing resulted in the loss of "sarcasm" in my post. LOL

That little mooney smilie should have been a good clue...

:lol:

 

[Sukerkin]

I suppose that whole "inability to denote inflections and body language" thing resulted in the loss of "sarcasm" in my post. LOL

Not at all, CC ... hey, I'm English remember? We turned sarcasm into an assassins art centuries ago :lol:.

 

[Cryozombie]

Not at all, CC ... hey, I'm English remember? We turned sarcasm into an assassins art centuries ago :lol:.

I thought you guys were all Dry Wit, Pip Pip Cheerio, Penfold and Dangermouse, you know old chap...

 

[arnisador]

Was that Sukerkin Blackadder's voice I just heard?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

was that sukerkin blackadder's voice i just heard?

roflmao!!!!

 

[blindsage]

Come on, just TRY it, it isnt hard:

"thats wrong, period"

no buts, no conditional modifiers, no putting it in context, just say it is wrong, if you are capable of it

Child marriage is wrong, period. Invading other countries because of different values is wrong, period. Condemning other religions with a less than half-*** knowledge of them is wrong, period. A large percentage of the time Twin Fist is wrong, period.

Hmmm, that was easy.

 

[blindsage]

I think people have the right to bash radical Islam. I wouldn't minds as much if Islamic clerics spoke out against such violence, but they don't, and all we hear about from the media is how bad the US is for dunking a few of these idiots upside down in a bath in Guantanamo bay and playing loud hair metal music to torture them.

What incentive does Western media have to show moderate Muslims, clerics or civilians? Do calm, peaceful, rational people make good news? Do you speak Arabic, or Persian? Do you watch media in their language? Hell, do you ever check out Aljazeera's english broadcasts? We only here what our media presents, assuming that is the whole story is willful blindness.

 

[Twin Fist]

well, YOU just broke the rules

Child marriage is wrong, period. Invading other countries because of different values is wrong, period. Condemning other religions with a less than half-*** knowledge of them is wrong, period. A large percentage of the time Twin Fist is wrong, period.

Hmmm, that was easy.

 

[Archangel M]

What incentive does Western media have to show moderate Muslims, clerics or civilians? Do calm, peaceful, rational people make good news? Do you speak Arabic, or Persian? Do you watch media in their language? Hell, do you ever check out Aljazeera's english broadcasts? We only here what our media presents, assuming that is the whole story is willful blindness.

Granted. Do you have any examples of Islamic media or politicians condemning radical Islamic violence or terrorist organizations?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Granted. Do you have any examples of Islamic media or politicians condemning radical Islamic violence or terrorist organizations?

How many would you like?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...EQG126C_fA0B11Aqw&sig2=mYoKhr_7LdbGDrqQ3Grv_g

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...hZ0EH7PTmvoBMs4KQ&sig2=0NsozmWKh7IPkK1acBxRbg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...N5-f6tjkqDFC1Sy0A&sig2=IHRQXkPNC3d_m-hnQ0Jdug

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...mRNdlG7lJjwYsF4vw&sig2=PxcTnxu2cVrhShfrzwwRVg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...aCZ3BSg5TV0B3wDAQ&sig2=_ZG16t_9_b6vfYkRazRaAQ

And etc...

 

[blindsage]

well, YOU just broke the rules

You are right. I apologize to you and the forum.

Now, YOU need to recognize that comments like

no buts, no conditional modifiers, no putting it in context, just say it is wrong, if you are capable of it

are just as rude, insulting and unnacceptable.

 

[elder999]

Granted. Do you have any examples of Islamic media or politicians condemning radical Islamic violence or terrorist organizations?

THe Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia condemned all acts of terrorism in 2005:

"Such acts run counter to the teachings of Islam.'' He went on to state: "God Almighty has decreed that people adhere to the principle of justice because heaven and earth are based on justice, and He sent his messengers to advocate for justice, and the Holy Qur'an underscores the importance of following the path of justice in this world. And it is clear that to hold someone responsible for a crime committed by another, is not just." He added: "Enmity and hatred do not justify aggression or injustice."

The Council on American Islamic Relations has run numerous public info spots, and links to numerous condemnations of radical Islamic violence and terrorism in the media.

 

[blindsage]

Granted. Do you have any examples of Islamic media or politicians condemning radical Islamic violence or terrorist organizations?

Thanks to Bill, there are plenty of links for you to check out. I would also recommend Aljazeera's website just about any day of the week to find other perspectives on what's going on in the Middle East, http://english.aljazeera.net/.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Folks, lets stick to the matter at hand and leave the digs out, mk?