[LANMaster]

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by columbo:
In fairness, it was the thread starter (ol' Lanny ) who associated these killings with Palestinians as a whole (see his statements above)...

WHAT?


OK, I've read LAN's posts, prior to this and after. Having read/talked with LAN enough, I knew he was peeved all the way around, however...

to be fair.....

1)LAN did not "associate these killings with Palestinians", their government and behavior did that. Moreover, the author of the article chose a Palestinian occurrence to base that particular article on.

2) you completely missed my point, and also avoided the question (so I am not sure who you are being "fair" to). Why does the insertion of the word Palestinian, particularly when appropriate to describe ethnicity/genealogy/geography of the incident/participants, somehow "change" the context? Clearly the posts were written in order to show that we must "appreciate" the circumstances there before condemning such acts. In a word.....Bullsh#@.....

As stated early on, those who focused on the people, and not the act/culture/law that support it, missed the point. I simply repeated the same sentiment. No objection came from my (outdated) article (except that it was outdated), and yet, change the area being reported on, and now it is somehow "different" and "complex"?

Give me a break.......


LAN,

Your list is not entirely accurate...

#1 should be extended to include the qualifier, "...unless it is at the hands of the dominant race/gender or America or (for within America) Republican supported"

#2) "....or single out any other country/persons unless America/Americans or supported by the current (or former, but only if Republican) administration"

#3) "... unless your cause is supported by America/Americans or the current (or former, but only Republican) administration."

#4) Unless pointing at yourself or others like you, then such "truth revelation" is more than appropriate, actually highly encouraged. However, being #4, you are automatically unable to "understand" enough to have the revelation.


Your thread was educational beyond belief, and should be commended, except you won't be, as you are viewed as #4, and therefore unable of doing anything worth commending by default. (would you like to use my Avatar too? )

[GoneForNow]

CF.........For a young man you sure have caught on quick to the mind set of many on this Board. I'm constantly amazed at the self-flagellation by the American members. It also seems the older the member the harder they whip.

[columbo]

Originally posted by ComputerFix:
WHAT?


OK, I've read LAN's posts, prior to this and after. Having read/talked with LAN enough, I knew he was peeved all the way around, however...

to be fair.....

1)LAN did not "associate these killings with Palestinians", their government and behavior did that. Moreover, the author of the article chose a Palestinian occurrence to base that particular article on.

LAN titled the thread "Palestinian Civility"...

Why not choose a title that relates to "honor killings" themselves, if that really was the subject?

Or call it "Lax punishments for honor killings" or something like that?

"Their" government and behaviour? Why not criticize the lawmakers themselves?

Yes, when you don't like a particular race of people, it is much easier to just speak of "them" and "their" behaviour, isn't it?

Obviously then, you would agree that any instances of injustice taking place within the United States are representative of all Americans, aren't they?

Any American law that I perceive to mete out too lax of a punishment, represents the entire consent and approval of that crime on behalf of all Americans, correct?

2) you completely missed my point, and also avoided the question (so I am not sure who you are being "fair" to). Why does the insertion of the word Palestinian, particularly when appropriate to describe ethnicity/genealogy/geography of the incident/participants, somehow "change" the context? Clearly the posts were written in order to show that we must "appreciate" the circumstances there before condemning such acts. In a word.....Bullsh#@.....

No, you missed the entire point of people objecting to this thread, due to your zealotry to valiantly defend against an attack that never even occured (talking about right-wing politics, or arguing against the condemnation of honor killings themselves).

If anyone is spewing forth bullsh#@ here, it's you.

No one (certainly not I) hesitated to condemn the "act" of murdering someone for "honor".

Myself, and others, took objection to LAN implying that these "acts" were representative of Palestinian people as a whole, and "their" culture in it's entirety.

As stated early on, those who focused on the people, and not the act/culture/law that support it, missed the point. I simply repeated the same sentiment. No objection came from my (outdated) article (except that it was outdated), and yet, change the area being reported on, and now it is somehow "different" and "complex"?

Give me a break.......

That's because LAN created this thread with the (quite obvious) inferrence that these "acts" were representative of Palestinians specifically. In his next post, he defends the articles as showing that Palestinians have a "propensity" for committing honor killings "more frequently" than others.

Once again CF, you have completely missed the point.

LAN,

Your list is not entirely accurate...

#1 should be extended to include the qualifier, "...unless it is at the hands of the dominant race/gender or America or (for within America) Republican supported"

#2) "....or single out any other country/persons unless America/Americans or supported by the current (or former, but only if Republican) administration"

#3) "... unless your cause is supported by America/Americans or the current (or former, but only Republican) administration."

#4) Unless pointing at yourself or others like you, then such "truth revelation" is more than appropriate, actually highly encouraged. However, being #4, you are automatically unable to "understand" enough to have the revelation.

Yes, you and the other right-leaning Americans on this board are always the victims aren't you?

Your thread was educational beyond belief, and should be commended, except you won't be, as you are viewed as #4, and therefore unable of doing anything worth commending by default. (would you like to use my Avatar too? )

[/B]

If the intent of this thread actually was to "educate" us on the occurence of these horrific killings, then why not quote statistics on their frequency throughout the world? Why not discuss the deeper issues involved (which pertain to a multitude of countries and societies throughout the world)?

Why not mention something like the report released by The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (a nongovernmental body), which stated that more than 1,000 women died in Pakistan in 1999 as victims of honor killings?

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/pakistan.html

Why?

Because the intent of this thread was not to "educate" people on the frequency of honor killings.

It was a blatant shot at the character of Palestinians as a whole; People whom LAN has made it quite clear that he does not like, and views as essentially being a collective race of terrorists.

If I am willing to say that I disagree with LAN, it's because I consider him a friend, and friends should not have to tip-toe around each other if they disagree with each other about something. I don't argue with him because I don't like him or question his character.

Columbo

[Cirrus]

Quote: Yes, you and the other right-leaning Americans on this board are always the victims aren't you?
_________________________________________________

I find that remark insulting to me and my family. Only the isrealis and palistinians can bring peace among themselves not Canada, US, Russia, OR third world country.

[columbo]

Originally posted by Cirrus:
Quote: Yes, you and the other right-leaning Americans on this board are always the victims aren't you?
_________________________________________________

I find that remark insulting to me and my family. Only the isrealis and palistinians can bring peace among themselves not Canada, US, Russia, OR third world country.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I made a sarcastic comment in response to CF's sarcastic comments.

If you're looking to stimulate a discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or add your views, it might make more sense to post it in a thread pertaining directly to the conflict.

Columbo

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by columbo:
LAN titled the thread "Palestinian Civility"...

Why not choose a title that relates to "honor killings" themselves, if that really was the subject?

Or call it "Lax punishments for honor killings" or something like that?

Which is why I said that I saw what others (including LAN, by his own admission) saw, but instead focused on the actual subject matter. I felt it more constructive...guess not.

"Their" government and behaviour? Why not criticize the lawmakers themselves?

Are the lawmakers not representatives of the people?

Yes, when you don't like a particular race of people, it is much easier to just speak of "them" and "their" behaviour, isn't it?

DO NOT make such presumptions. I could care one way or the other who "them" and "their" are, thus my use of the word. Substitute Canadian, or American, in that first article, or the one I posted, and my reactions would be no different.

Obviously then, you would agree that any instances of injustice taking place within the United States are representative of all Americans, aren't they?

Any American law that I perceive to mete out too lax of a punishment, represents the entire consent and approval of that crime on behalf of all Americans, correct?

1) If the US legislation grants an exception to the murder statute, they do so on behalf of the entire population. Just as with capital punishment, one can draw the inference that America is a society that believes in such. While specific individuals may or may not, as a whole, this country believes in taking life as punishment.

2) There is discretion built into the Judicial system of the US. This can provide for "lax" punishments, supposedly (but not always) based on circumstances. However, the failure in your "zinger" counter thread is that the statutes themselves do not dictate lax punishment for domestic abuse, and that is what the case is here. It is not as though these murders are on "equal footing" as other murders, with a judicial failure, they are specifically categorized for leniency.

3) If the US legalizes weed, for example, than it IS representative of the collective wishes of the culture and society. It may not represent me, as an example, but it does reflect upon the value judgments of the society of which I am a part of. So while you labor to "turn the tables" they already are, it seems the problem only exists when the same is done to a perceived minority/disadvantaged group, in this case, Palestinians.

No, you missed the entire point of people objecting to this thread, due to your zealotry to valiantly defend against an attack that never even occurred (talking about right-wing politics, or arguing against the condemnation of honor killings themselves).

If anyone is spewing forth bullsh#@ here, it's you.

Really?

First reply to this thread: Paq commenting on the UK incident (which also came up again later)

Second reply: What about the Jews?

What follows is an entire conversation about Israel/Jewish/Biblical stuff.

Your right, no one hesitated in the least....to change the subject to something entirely different.

top of page 2, LAN say point blank that, despite the implication, it is about pride, not religion.

Nice try, for it was quickly turned back around, citing LAN for words that the article author wrote, and further explanations on how the Israeli occupation is somehow significant. (without even debating that issue, Israel has jack squat to do with this practice in Palestine)

At the same time, you posted a counter thread, showing crime statistics in America. Of course, those are considered crimes, without a wink or a not, but indeed, that didn't really matter much.

In review, there are only really three posts in the first three PAGES of posts that came out against the practice. Hell, you applied statistical probability to it, implying some sort of "no big deal" attitude since the likelihood of it happening was so small (your statistical model is wrong, BTW, but I did not want to give it justice by even replying to it. As LAN said, but to deaf ears, does it really matter if it only happened once? Is it not the laws and perceptions of appropriateness that are the problem, not the frequency of occurrence?)

No one (certainly not I) hesitated to condemn the "act" of murdering someone for "honor".

Myself, and others, took objection to LAN implying that these "acts" were representative of Palestinian people as a whole, and "their" culture in it's entirety.

Yes, you and the other right-leaning Americans on this board are always the victims aren't you?

And here is the biggest irony of all, and just proves my point. On many issues I am left-leaning, it just so happens on the last couple of big ones I agreed with the Republican administration. Of course, the need to stereotype me as an Arab hating right winger is required to take shots.

My political persuasion (which is only right leaning here, as anywhere else I am pegged as not just left, but a socialist at that!) is moot to my observation.

Every thread relating to anything Palestinian comes under fire not for it's subject matter, but because it provides the opportunity to "slam" the poster as being an Arab hater/Israeli supporter. Whether they are or not should not matter. I saw no one dispute the accuracy of the article in the least, instead turning this into another Anti-Palestinian/Pro-Israeli or Anti-Israeli/Pro-Palestinian issue. The bias is clearly evident, and historical thread show it. There was a thread about the woman who was to be stoned to death for adultery in Africa, a sentence carried out by a Muslim dominated government/judicial system. Nary a word was spoken about religion, instead it was all about the inappropriateness of what was happening. (I say nary because there was one post with a "what about..." theme, but it was only one) This is simply another inappropriate, or dare I say "uncivil", practice, but now it is all about being an Arab, or Muslim, or "what about the Jews?" issue.

My "zealous" rebuke has to do with the incomprehensible fact that it becomes more apparent everyday that, even if this were a broad brush racist thread, it is somehow only inappropriate because it speaks of Palestinians. As one who usually finds room for debate in most of the threads here, I was shocked beyond belief (though I obviously should not have been) that, despite the fact a better title could/should have been chosen, it took PAGES before people (at least the "verbose" posters) were actually looking at the real issue within the first post (honor killing), but only then to highlight the infrequency and that it we must also examine the Jews for some reason. In all of my time here, I have never seen a hum-drum "humanistic" thread (where we all generally post a "that sucks" type sentiment with hardly a contradictory opinion) get twisted so harshly and with such speed.

[columbo]

1) If the US legislation grants an exception to the murder statute, they do so on behalf of the entire population. Just as with capital punishment, one can draw the inference that America is a society that believes in such. While specific individuals may or may not, as a whole, this country believes in taking life as punishment.

2) There is discretion built into the Judicial system of the US. This can provide for "lax" punishments, supposedly (but not always) based on circumstances. However, the failure in your "zinger" counter thread is that the statutes themselves do not dictate lax punishment for domestic abuse, and that is what the case is here. It is not as though these murders are on "equal footing" as other murders, with a judicial failure, they are specifically categorized for leniency.

3) If the US legalizes weed, for example, than it IS representative of the collective wishes of the culture and society. It may not represent me, as an example, but it does reflect upon the value judgments of the society of which I am a part of. So while you labor to "turn the tables" they already are, it seems the problem only exists when the same is done to a perceived minority/disadvantaged group, in this case, Palestinians.

One of the original examples I used was (what I perceive to be) lax laws against animal abuse (lax because of the statutes, NOT the discretion of judges trying the cases).

There are Americans that are constantly lobbying to have laws changed, just as there are Palestinians and Jordanians and Pakistanis, etc. that are lobbying to have laws changed.

You and I obviously disagree fundamentally on the notion that one can assume that the laws drawn up by and enforced by a specific government are entirely representative of the subjects of that government, and of their culture, society, etc. as a whole.

Really?

First reply to this thread: Paq commenting on the UK incident (which also came up again later)

Second reply: What about the Jews?

What follows is an entire conversation about Israel/Jewish/Biblical stuff.

Your right, no one hesitated in the least....to change the subject to something entirely different.

top of page 2, LAN say point blank that, despite the implication, it is about pride, not religion.

Nice try, for it was quickly turned back around, citing LAN for words that the article author wrote, and further explanations on how the Israeli occupation is somehow significant. (without even debating that issue, Israel has jack squat to do with this practice in Palestine)

I did not involve myself in the "Israeli vs. Palestinian" argument when it arose specifically because I did not see it as being relevant.

At the same time, you posted a counter thread, showing crime statistics in America. Of course, those are considered crimes, without a wink or a not, but indeed, that didn't really matter much.

In review, there are only really three posts in the first three PAGES of posts that came out against the practice. Hell, you applied statistical probability to it, implying some sort of "no big deal" attitude since the likelihood of it happening was so small (your statistical model is wrong, BTW, but I did not want to give it justice by even replying to it. As LAN said, but to deaf ears, does it really matter if it only happened once? Is it not the laws and perceptions of appropriateness that are the problem, not the frequency of occurrence?)

I started the counter-thread in large part, because it was implied (LAN's comment on "growing propensity" or however he phrased it) that the rate of occurence was relevant.

Take issue with LAN for bringing up rate of occurance, not me.

Pertaining to the "Jordanian Statistic", while I'm sure that you're a qualified expert in statistical analysis , I'll take the liberty to assume that you were tempted to "rip apart" my "statistical model" based on the fact that one could assume that honor killings would only apply to women between certain ages (let's say, 12-35?)...Or that, to be even more accurate, one should take into account female population density by region, by class, by family income, religion, etc.

I did not mean to present it as an accurate representation, merely a "ballpark" figure relating to the likelihood that a Jordanian woman would be the victim of an honour killing.

Again, the ONLY reason I mentioned anything about the low liklehood of a woman being the victim of an honour killing is because LAN stated that it was occurring more frequently amongst Palestinians, and that they had a greater propensity for it. The same reason that I posted U.S. crime statistics (to show that rate of occurance or frequency, does NOT reflect definitively on a society, race, culture, etc. as a whole)!

And here is the biggest irony of all, and just proves my point. On many issues I am left-leaning, it just so happens on the last couple of big ones I agreed with the Republican administration. Of course, the need to stereotype me as an Arab hating right winger is required to take shots.

When did I say you hate Arabs? DO NOT make such presumptions.

Every thread relating to anything Palestinian comes under fire not for it's subject matter, but because it provides the opportunity to "slam" the poster as being an Arab hater/Israeli supporter. Whether they are or not should not matter. I saw no one dispute the accuracy of the article in the least, instead turning this into another Anti-Palestinian/Pro-Israeli or Anti-Israeli/Pro-Palestinian issue. The bias is clearly evident, and historical thread show it. There was a thread about the woman who was to be stoned to death for adultery in Africa, a sentence carried out by a Muslim dominated government/judicial system. Nary a word was spoken about religion, instead it was all about the inappropriateness of what was happening. (I say nary because there was one post with a "what about..." theme, but it was only one) This is simply another inappropriate, or dare I say "uncivil", practice, but now it is all about being an Arab, or Muslim, or "what about the Jews?" issue.

1) That was DN that brought up the Israelis....not me.

2) LAN polarized this issue with the title he chose, and the statements he made shortly thereafter.

3) I don't recall the thread being called "Nigerian Civility", or anyone labelling the entire populace of Nigeria as being supportive of this practice? Not to mention the fact that in that case, it was the government that was carrying out the act that we deemed criminal, not individuals.

My "zealous" rebuke has to do with the incomprehensible fact that it becomes more apparent everyday that, even if this were a broad brush racist thread, it is somehow only inappropriate because it speaks of Palestinians. As one who usually finds room for debate in most of the threads here, I was shocked beyond belief (though I obviously should not have been) that, despite the fact a better title could/should have been chosen, it took PAGES before people (at least the "verbose" posters) were actually looking at the real issue within the first post (honor killing), but only then to highlight the infrequency and that it we must also examine the Jews for some reason. In all of my time here, I have never seen a hum-drum "humanistic" thread (where we all generally post a "that sucks" type sentiment with hardly a contradictory opinion) get twisted so harshly and with such speed.

I've seen those threads, where everyone generally posts either a sweeping condemnation (or conversely, a universal expression of sympathy). Child abduction and child-abuse are two topics which I believe have been introduced in thread form that received such attitudes.

Again, all I can say is that a thread will generally take the direction and adopt the tone that the thread-starter injects it with.

Do not complain about the "point" of this thread being missed, when it is obvious (to me at least), that the point was to show how barbaric and incomprehensibly savage the Palestinian people are.

As I said before, the only intent I saw of it, was to further de-humanize a race of people that the thread starter already seems to see as being a nation of terrorists.

Columbo

[columbo]

CF,

I have to go and won't be back on-line until tomorrow afternoon or so, so if I don't respond in a timely fashion, don't think I'm ignoring you (and I haven't conceded defeat! )

Also, sorry if any of my posts came across as being rude or mean-spirited. I hope our arguments are not taken personally, and that you won't call me belligerent and choose to ignore me for a week like Mulder did last year

Peace

Columbo

[angelize56]

Just popping in to apply the bandages to CF and Columbo's foreheads! Now take these lollipops and carry on! *wink*

[ComputerFix]

ooohhhh.....lollipops.......


oh, wait, Columbo was saying....ah, forget it...lets enjoy the lollipops instead.


(guess Angel knows how easily I can be distracted by candy )

Columbo,

Never taken personally. Rough week(s), behind and ahead, and my sparce attendence here is part of that, and part because I know that I may be "hangin on a bit too tight" because of it.

[angelize56]

I got you a cherry one CF! Enjoy!

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by columbo:
[B]One of the original examples I used was (what I perceive to be) lax laws against animal abuse (lax because of the statutes, NOT the discretion of judges trying the cases).

There are Americans that are constantly lobbying to have laws changed, just as there are Palestinians and Jordanians and Pakistanis, etc. that are lobbying to have laws changed.

You and I obviously disagree fundamentally on the notion that one can assume that the laws drawn up by and enforced by a specific government are entirely representative of the subjects of that government, and of their culture, society, etc. as a whole.

I guess so, because I don't disagree with that example. While individuals may lobby this way or that, it is not incorrect to draw the assumption, based on our laws, that as a culture, we don't take animal killing all that seriously. Some segments of our society do (I recall an "oddity" article some time ago where a small rural town wanted a man charged with murder for shooting the towns unofficial mascot and citicizen, a stray dog). Overall, however, when it comes to killing animals our society has a hiarchy. Kill a cow, and it is either food, or destruction of property (for a cow farmer). Kill someones cat, and animal cruelty laws can take hold, but that "hold" rarely amounts to much in the end.

If you were to claim that America does not hold much value of animals unless they are "cute", the laws for such killings would really prevent me from argueing otherwise. (In fact, I wouldn't try, as I agree with the statement itself) "Our" (Americans) overall lack of interest in the matter is also reflected in our representatives in government and the laws they make in relation to such acts.

Does it mean we want to kill pets/other animals, no, it means we just don't really consider it all that much in the way of "crime".

I did not involve myself in the "Israeli vs. Palestinian" argument when it arose specifically because I did not see it as being relevant.

I know. I was explaining my entire position, wich extended beyond your posts. We just happen to be the ones talking about it.

I started the counter-thread in large part, because it was implied (LAN's comment on "growing propensity" or however he phrased it) that the rate of occurence was relevant.

Take issue with LAN for bringing up rate of occurance, not me.

Touche. I see his post. I still think your statistic is innaccurate, and since this is the second time I have said that, I guess I should show why.

You relate the number of occurances to the number of women for your ratio. In fact, a more accurate "probability" would be to take those who actually face the risk. So for example, of those who are raped, how many are killed by family under the "honor killing" theme?

To be accurate, you have to take the potential to actual victim ratio.

Pertaining to the "Jordanian Statistic", while I'm sure that you're a qualified expert in statistical analysis ,

lmao...hardly.....

I'll take the liberty to assume that you were tempted to "rip apart" my "statistical model" based on the fact that one could assume that honor killings would only apply to women between certain ages (let's say, 12-35?)...Or that, to be even more accurate, one should take into account female population density by region, by class, by family income, religion, etc.

I did not mean to present it as an accurate representation, merely a "ballpark" figure relating to the likelihood that a Jordanian woman would be the victim of an honour killing.

oops, my failure. Responding as I go, covered above. Though it could go down as far as you point (depending on level of "anal-ness"), even in ballpark standards, it is compounding issue. A Jordanian woman is at 0 risk unless certain circumstances occur first. So if one wanted to at least be realistic, the base should only be those who meet such criteria. Being a woman is one, but a very broad one. Starting where there is at least a risk above 0 would seem more appropriate.

Again, the ONLY reason I mentioned anything about the low liklehood of a woman being the victim of an honour killing is because LAN stated that it was occurring more frequently amongst Palestinians, and that they had a greater propensity for it. The same reason that I posted U.S. crime statistics (to show that rate of occurance or frequency, does NOT reflect definitively on a society, race, culture, etc. as a whole)!

Understood.

When did I say you hate Arabs? DO NOT make such presumptions.

"Yes, when you don't like a particular race of people, it is much easier to just speak of "them" and "their" behaviour, isn't it?"

1) That was DN that brought up the Israelis....not me.

Again, I know. Was relevant to my post, and therefore included.

2) LAN polarized this issue with the title he chose, and the statements he made shortly thereafter.

Chicken or the Egg?

The copied story was on Palistine, the second link spoke of Jordan, and the third was a Kurdish refugee living in the UK (and the act took place there as well)

A quote from that article...

"This is, in any view, a tragic story arising out of irreconcilable cultural differences between traditional Kurdish values and the values of western society," [Judge] Denison said today, according to the report. "

But of course, since it is not cutural, then there can be no cultural differences, so what exactly is this judge talking about?

[Cirrus]

Columbo dude , hello. EDITED FOR REASONS OF INSANITY

[Cirrus]

The Canadian law that prohibits Americans from entering Canada because of a DWI is quite unfair itself. Maybe we need a fence between US and Canada.