Saudi king 'pardons rape victim'
-
Originally posted by fymk:
my friend you dont even know what case i'm talking about how can you say it's baseless? how can you say gender apartheid exists in saudi arabia when FEWER rapes occur in saudi arabia PER CAPITA than in USA for instance, which isn't blamed for any such "apartheids" by you or your ilk.
And if you bothered to read my reply, you came up with no case but a baseless generalisation. Don't compare what is a well known fact of Saudi Arabia being a gender apartheid country with your baseless statement of medical malpractice.If you can find evidence that there is gross negligence on the part of the doctor , go to the Medical Board and I am pretty sure that they will take action. If the doctor has wronged you and you have evidence - go to the courts. [b] Don't throw accusations that Singapore treats foreigners like crap. You give no evidence at all with no details whatsoever .
that's all? pretty sure. and when for a fact it doesn't go the victim's way, how will you answer the victim? i was pretty sure but not absolutely sure? singapore does discriminate against foreigners including PRC citizens among others. this doesn't mean other anglophone countries or their colonies dont. my point is that this is supported and not thought of as a crime, hence the colonies also follow suit. apparently so do the citizens, media, think tanks etc
even in singapore a foreign man marrying a singapore woman has to wait for a number of years before being granted citizenship while the reverse is not true, "deplorable as their gender apartheid is".
Even in Saudi Arabia , they have to get 4 male muslim witnesses to state a rape took place, deplorable as their gender apartheid is
[b]As I said , their archaic law may make it right. But as a woman, I reserve the rght to speak up against gender discrimination. As a person , I find their laws sickeningly repugnant and degrading to my own gender. My feelings, my opinions , so buzz off.
you can and should learn how to keep your opinions, your feelings your thoughts on these matters to yourself and not publicize them. by doing so, you're open to criticism. if you can't accep this, "..buzz off".
that was uncalled for. and not related to the topic, whether singapore is an attractive destination, whether it has merits/demerits, shortcomings etc is another discussion.
Don't like countries who were former british colonies? Don't come then. Stay in where ever you came from since you appear to generalise them as the same across the board.[/b] -
Sorry I misread the article, you are right in this case she was punished because of being accompanied by a stranger. I apologize.Originally posted by protonhybrid:instead of writing a longwinded piece it'd have been better if you'd read the article instead. rape victim was punished for breaking a law of saudi arabia, that of being accompanied by a stranger/adult male! she's punished for that, not for being raped.
if you being a muslim can't answer these topics well enough, it MAY SEEM in vain to hope for nonmuslims to know muslim issues well.
You have to understand that I'm a bit against the laws against woman in arab countries and I've been wanting to share my points.
I wanted to share that most rape victims in arab countries tend to be afraid to go to the authorities because of shame or the accusation of zina.
Rape in Islam: Blaming the Victim
By Robert Spencer
Quote
"Traditional Islamic law, which is still very much in force in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, most (if not all) of post-Taliban Afghanistan, and elsewhere, completely disregards the testimony of women in cases of a sexual nature. Aside from physical evidence, the only way to establish rape is by the testimony of four male witnesses (who, by the way, must be Muslims in good standing) who actually saw the act itself. Without these witnesses and a confession from the accused rapist, the victim will stand condemned by her very accusation: she wasnÂ’t raped, so she must be guilty of zina."
This is what I was trying to point out and yes I have to agree with you that I misread the post.
I really apologize, my mistake. -
Originally posted by protonhybrid:
I asked you to state your case which you did not. So how am I suppose to know what you are referring to? I wish I was psychic and could read minds but alas that is not a gift I have.
my friend you dont even know what case i'm talking about how can you say it's baseless? how can you say gender apartheid exists in saudi arabia when FEWER rapes occur in saudi arabia PER CAPITA than in USA for instance, which isn't blamed for any such "apartheids" by you or your ilk.
As for Saudi Arabia, low rapes doesn't mean anything especially for Saudi Arabia. It is not an open "anglo" country that publishes rape statistics. Women are suppressed there and virginity is prized. And it punishes women for being raped one way or the other . How do you expect women to stand up and report such a crime?
You spoke about a victim yet gave no details . Quit implying Singapore is some colony. It is an independent country.
that's all? pretty sure. and when for a fact it doesn't go the victim's way, how will you answer the victim? i was pretty sure but not absolutely sure? singapore does discriminate against foreigners including PRC citizens among others. this doesn't mean other anglophone countries or their colonies dont. my point is that this is supported and not thought of as a crime, hence the colonies also follow suit. apparently so do the citizens, media, think tanks etc
I am surprised you said that Singapore discriminate against foreigners . Shed some details or else don't give some statement without justification.
Well u can think of it this way. The Singaporean guys did their NS . If they wish to marry foreign wives and bring them over fast as citizens - why not?
even in singapore a foreign man marrying a singapore woman has to wait for a number of years before being granted citizenship while the reverse is not true, "deplorable as their gender apartheid is".
I , as a Singaporean female , won't be complaining about that aspect.
Oh I tend to say it when I see bigots with double standards. I provide a female voice to this issue .
you can and should learn how to keep your opinions, your feelings your thoughts on these matters to yourself and not publicize them. by doing so, you're open to criticism. if you can't accep this, "..buzz off".
Are you female?
LOL coming from a guy who stated that all chinese belong to China and implied that all chinese should go back to China.
quote:
Don't like countries who were former british colonies? Don't come then. Stay in where ever you came from since you appear to generalise them as the same across the board.
that was uncalled for. and not related to the topic, whether singapore is an attractive destination, whether it has merits/demerits, shortcomings etc is another discussion.
[/b]
You don't like the anglo side of it . Spare yourself the suffering and don't come so that we don't hear your complaints especially those without justifications. -
I am independent and single . oh , You do happen to be aware that there are actually independent single women who have their own jobs with career prospects and their own properties without the need of a man in the world, right?
that's being facetious. IF that's your definition of being nondiscriminated against/no gender apartheid, then saudi doesn't have one as many women work in saudi arabia as well as other arab countries. you only have to look at female labour participation rates. well in fact if you compare the chart with all other countries of the world, what you find is that neither do western countries dominate nor do rich countries.
So explain to me which part of my independence as a woman have been subjugated ? I would love to hear that line of logic from you since I actually am not aware of being discriminated against because I am a woman.
point being, it doesn't tell you anything.
why are there fewer women in parliament, in policy making, top doctors, scientists, policemen, civil servants, armed forces personnel etc etc in singapore? no gender discrimination perhaps.
why are there separate sex sports teams in not only singapore but all around the world for heavy sports? like weightlifting, athletics, bodybuilding, football, hockey etc? no gender discrimination (not that it's illogical, gender discrimination makes sense mate.
it's funny you have no inkling what you're mumbling about. you talk about freedom of speech in australia, YET in same vein ridicule the imam for his exercise of freedom of speech. mate if you can't live with that you'd better go back to singapore i suppose.
I live in Australia. Australians give out their opinions freely. Some supported the death sentence and some don't. Freedom of expression , in case you have no inkling of what it all means.
If that iman wants to enter a country and live there, he follows the culture and NOT impose his VALUES on the SOCIETY. He can follow his own values as long as he does not make stupid remarks openly because those remarks can bite him in the back.
If he can't take what he terms as raw meat , I wonder why he didn't choose Saudi Arabia as a choice place of immigration. The women there are covered from head to toe.
Human muscles are hidden under skin - unless you have x - ray eyes - I don't think he meant it that way.
oh, a factual error, the imam in question afaik did NOT impose his values on aborigines of australia. it was the englishmen who did so, i think you're serving the right advice to wrong people. unless the imam was english himself, you should be telling the english invaders of australia to go back to england or adapt original aboriginal cultures instead of imposing their english values on aborigines.The History of Malaya says differently about my nice theory. Malaccan history as well . So are you saying History is a liar?
now you're repeating the same error. it was YOU who said south east asian matrilineal society tended to provide "moderate" whatever that may mean religion as opposed to let's say middle eastern ones. my question was bali bombings among others, will they spark the same reaction from likes of you as they're doing right now? apparently yes.
Oh so how would you label those who did the bali bombings ? Heroes no doubt in your terms.
kindly attach a pic of what singaporean women/men wear as office attire. if you want i can do so.
That is your generalisation of sg women .
As I recall living and working in Singapore did not require me to wear skimpier clothing . Is that your view that women have to show more skin than men at the workplace in Singapore and elsewhere? That is rather moronic.Most women have to balance work and family life . Politicians have to garner the wholesome image of being a family man or woman. It is a choice. Heard of house husbands? They do exists you know.
you seem to have a penchant for being inane it appears. i was talking about women going topless as opposed to men in singapore. obviously the woman who goes topless will be castigated but not the man (in public). but both will be castigated for going "bottomless" (lol). that means there is an extra burden on the woman in singapore and oz, uk, usa & anglo countries.
If a man goes naked waste down , he gets labelled a pervert and he gets charged . He might even get caning!
So explain to me how is it so unequal now?
House Husbands - rare but you got some going on
Education - women are being educated more and more. Last time a woman was expected to marry and be a wife and mother . Now a woman can aspire for so much more. So we have yet to see the effects there.
Skimpy clothing - it is a woman's choice if she wishes to don them on or not.
[quote]
saudi women also are getting educated more and more. dont' be narrow minded to think ONLY you, singaporeans or whoever follow anglo customs get educated the rest are not. most of developing world that enjoys boom are getting educated, and yes more and more.
"this time" also a woman is expected to be a wife and mother. i dont think that has changed unless some biological innovation takes place (like cloning perhaps, that's drawbacks too though). no wonder singapore alongside so many western nations are facing population crunch which will depress their economies, burden their working population, and create social tension. as such sg govt and other govts are urging for higher birth rates. and geez, women still have to be mothers for children to be born (as men have to be fathers) whether wives or not! -
come again. how did you gather that?Originally posted by fymk:What the hell are you talking about now? Since when did China come into the picture? What's with the chinese belonging to China? My my - what bigotry you have shown.
[/quote]
IF chinese don't belong to china, what are china's inhabitants (humans) called?
come again. i catch no ball leh (singlish expression i suppose)
I was citing the history of human rights in non anglo settings, because apparently human rights to you is an exclusive european influence.
Like I said , I say what I want to , I state my opinion and if you don't like it , it's your problem .No need to show such bigotry about the overseas chinese diaspora.
[quote]
What is your problem with USA? You seem to be quite anti american from what I can see or rather you seem to be anti western as well as anti former british colony from the disdain you have shown for Singapore and UK .
anyway i'm off for now, i hope i'll reply tomorrow or day after maybe a few days later. i can't keep replying for hours and hours .....i've got to go now. -
Why don't you show me a picture of a woman worker in Singapore first? Let's see what you can come up with a female office worker in skimpy clothing. Let's see what your version of skimpy is .
The Iman opens his mouth about women and so us women open our mouths about him. Freedom of Speech and his freedom of speech is taken as an example of what he as a religious teacher is telling his congregation and the rest of Australia what some muslims think. No wonder some rapists hide behind the defence of their so called "culture" and shame the rest of their good brethen.
Bali bombing was done by a group of bombers from Jemaah Islamiyah which had links to Al Qaeda. So you were saying again?
You are castigating westernised countries because of some reason.
Are you from the middle east?
Are you muslim?
Or are you just a bystander like the rest of us . -
And whatever false precedents they take into their so called islamic laws.
Sigh.Originally posted by silvernitrate:"Traditional Islamic law, which is still very much in force in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, most (if not all) of post-Taliban Afghanistan, and elsewhere, completely disregards the testimony of women in cases of a sexual nature. Aside from physical evidence, the only way to establish rape is by the testimony of four male witnesses (who, by the way, must be Muslims in good standing) who actually saw the act itself. Without these witnesses and a confession from the accused rapist, the victim will stand condemned by her very accusation: she wasnÂ’t raped, so she must be guilty of zina."
This is what I was trying to point out and yes I have to agree with you that I misread the post.
I really apologize, my mistake.
-
Who is the "they" are you referring to? I suppose it's not the Arabs as an entirety, but the Arab males who dominate its society. I'm sure if the Arab females were given the same power as their male counterparts, probably through a miracle, the first thing they will do is to abolish those laws that are denying their long-deserved rights as a human.Originally posted by deathbait:Erm. They have the right to set the laws of their own community, much as we have the right to set laws for ourselves. It's how the social structure works. Just because it's alien to us does not make it wrong. They aren't the ones who are imposing their definations of right and wrong on others. You are.
Arab women are part of the arab society. That society has it's own rules. Insisting that they treat women wrongly is EXACTLY the same as them insisting we treat our womenfolk wrongly. There is no right or wrong here. Their community work in one way, and ours another. One thing's for sure though, they aren't the ones screaming and complaining when our women get equal rights. They at least are wise enough to know about respecting different cultures.
I don't impose my definition between right and wrong on them, unless you see me killing those Arab judges and rapists there. I'm simply expressing what I feel as a fellow human being for someone who, in my definition, has been treated unfairly on the other side of the world.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Say, you have a neighbour whose family is bounded by very conservative values. And one day, you see a girl in their family was brutally injured and covered in wounds at their doorstep. Her brother speaks up for her and tells everyone in the vicinity that his father is abusing his sister. You were told that she was beaten up by her father because she had broke a rule his father has set that disallows female family members to leave the house. Other neighbours came to know of the situation and were criticizing the father. He then got furious, slapped his brother and took a thick cane to whack the girl.
What will you do as a neighbour? Are you going to be someone you are like now, suggesting that he has the right to set his own family rules and therefore right to punish her that severely? And remain indifferent about it, or even grateful for the fact that he has not imposed those restrictive rules on your family, which you deem as respect for your own family? But later, regret for your inaction only after a tragedy has happened, say, she commits suicide, or kills everyone in the family before so?
Or would you rather be on the other side, disagreeing with his actions and are willing to take one step further to stop his abuse of violence, and thereby ending her suffering that she, as a human being like you and me, does not deserve? -
Please read my post carefully. There's nothing wrong in setting a law for the benefit of its people and deter the actions of a few radicals which may do harm to them. But setting them to deny the women their basic rights to even meet a fellow human being and their rights to annul such outrageous laws is simply ridiculous.Originally posted by protonhybrid:meh quite a circular argument friend you've got there.
for you to say arab guys are wrong to set laws for their own nation, doesn't it also imply that all nations are wrong in setting laws for their own selves? do you know what you're saying?
And as I have mentioned in my previous post, and like you did, it's the Arab guys who are setting the laws, not the Arab people as a whole. It's not even within their rights to impose what they define as right or wrong onto the women. The women, as humans and Arabs, deserve a say in making the laws to be fair to themselves.
On the other hand, I wonder whether you are aware of what you are speaking, like popping a irrelevant topic about the Chinese should return to China and stuffs like that.
And I have two questions for you as well. Do you agree with my statement of "It is the right of every human to define what is right and what is wrong"?
If you do, why should the Arab women be denied of their rights to define what is right and wrong for themselves?
If not, why should the Arab men be allowed to create the definition and impose them onto the women, when they unquestionably disagree on it? -
thats not a very good example, because when you are neighbours, you will be living in the same country, governed by the same law and exposed to similar cultures. Saudi is a total different country all together, even in Middle East standard.Originally posted by LatecomerX:Who is the "they" are you referring to? I suppose it's not the Arabs as an entirety, but the Arab males who dominate its society. I'm sure if the Arab females were given the same power as their male counterparts, probably through a miracle, the first thing they will do is to abolish those laws that are denying their long-deserved rights as a human.
I don't impose my definition between right and wrong on them, unless you see me killing those Arab judges and rapists there. I'm simply expressing what I feel as a fellow human being for someone who, in my definition, has been treated unfairly on the other side of the world.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Say, you have a neighbour whose family is bounded by very conservative values. And one day, you see a girl in their family was brutally injured and covered in wounds at their doorstep. Her brother speaks up for her and tells everyone in the vicinity that his father is abusing his sister. You were told that she was beaten up by her father because she had broke a rule his father has set that disallows female family members to leave the house. Other neighbours came to know of the situation and were criticizing the father. He then got furious, slapped his brother and took a thick cane to whack the girl.
What will you do as a neighbour? Are you going to be someone you are like now, suggesting that he has the right to set his own family rules and therefore right to punish her that severely? And remain indifferent about it, or even grateful for the fact that he has not imposed those restrictive rules on your family, which you deem as respect for your own family? But later, regret for your inaction only after a tragedy has happened, say, she commits suicide, or kills everyone in the family before so?
Or would you rather be on the other side, disagreeing with his actions and are willing to take one step further to stop his abuse of violence, and thereby ending her suffering that she, as a human being like you and me, does not deserve?
The Saudis are against women wearing mini skirts, having premarital sex and abortion. Should the Saudi also have the rights to tell Singaporeans women that they are slu.ts and bit.ches and they should be punish by God? -
Finally I come to the conclusion that protonhyrid is an ardent supporter of Saudi Arabia male-dominated Government. And high chance that he supports the gender discrimination himself.
He feverishly tried to attack fymk's view and opinion on the issue on discrimination against women.
Let me tell you something, even it is the laws (Saudi laws) does not mean it is morally/ethically/logically correct. If you want to say I am imposing my view on the Saudi, so be it.
You are just one male Muslim who believe Saudi/Sharia laws against the women is fair and right. So be it. It is your opinion. To me, the Saudi/Sharia laws are extremely discrimintive towards the women gender. This is my opinion.
oh you mentioned that you do not believe in the term 'humane'. Well I'm afriad that is just your ill-pecerption. Even if you dun believe in 'humane treatment' does not mean it does not exist. Simple as that. -
U have to take note that the Arab women are insidiously fighting for their equal right and social standing. But you can be almost 100% sure non-Arab women have no intention of wearing stringent Arabic dress code.Originally posted by Gazelle:The Saudis are against women wearing mini skirts, having premarital sex and abortion. Should the Saudi also have the rights to tell Singaporeans women that they are slu.ts and bit.ches and they should be punish by God? -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know that there are many women's groups in Saudi Arabia, made up of Arab women, fighting for the rights of Arab women?
And majority of the Arab women want to have more right and freedom? Equal social standing as their male counterparts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what is this supposed to mean? men and women are not same how can they be equal? do you have an all men/women's team in most physical sports or mixed teams? weightlifting, boxing, wrestling, athletics, swimming, football, basketball, volleyball, cricket, hockey, sumo, karate, etc etc etc?
why are they segregated if they're equal?
you know there are many women's rights groups who want equal social standing as their male counterparts.
From your post, we can easily see that you are just a chauvinistic male pig.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, significant number of ordinary Arab men do support that women deserved more rights and freedom, eg driving cars.
Sources: BBC news websites. Some of the articles are written by Arab writers. Once again you can also argue that BBC, being a Western media, is biased. Up to one's own interpration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bbc is indeed biased being an anglophone website. it promotes pro uk pro usa agenda as shown by their anti russian drivel among others recently. so it's not just pro western, it's only pro anglo. I did mention some of the articles are written by non-Saudi-Arab Mulism scholars. Do not try to blindly brush away the evidence that Arab women want equal social standing by claiming BBC to be biased. NOw even Russia comes into the argument. -
They follow Sharia Laws.
-
Let put the arab aside for now. Do you think that premarital sex and abortion is acceptable?Originally posted by Spartans:U have to take note that the Arab women are insidiously fighting for their equal right and social standing. But you can be almost 100% sure non-Arab women have no intention of wearing stringent Arabic dress code. -
well no offence but i think you're being simplistic and naive. ancient persians had many achievements no doubt and so do current iranians. there are no indications that iran is intolerant. nor is there any reason to believe that "tolerance" itself is some sort of miracle that'll propel all societies into future, maybe into next millennium. nor is tolerance a panacea to all ills. in other words, tolerance doesn't mean much. nor does the lack of it.Originally posted by fymk:Excuse me , did I say anything negative about Iran? I don't think I did. Why so defensive? I objected to how hollywood portrayed Xerxes in the movie 300.
I know of the persian history. They were Zoroastarians during the time when Persia was an empire. The first human rights documents were written by the Persians and had a very tolerant culture - a culture which respected religions.
Even now though Islam has taken over as the primary religion , they do still respect the persian Jews as the "People of the Book" ( a statement by the Great Ayatollah Khomeni himself) and should be protected. One can say safely that Islamic Iran is not as tolerant as its past entity , the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great. However it is more tolerant compared to its arab brethen.
And if we do look at the past of Persia and their human rights documents , it is the almost similar to the UN charter of Universal Human Rights in terms of right to religious beliefs , right to liberty , no slavery, and the ancient persians also respected women- women could have property, earn wages etc . So there is not too difference between the Universal human rights declaration and the document of the first human rights documentation decreed by Cyrus.
And if you notice - it is actually a sarcastic reply to OM about him implying Saudi Arabia as some democracy.
and the FACT that UN charters TODAY is so close to persian charters harking back millenia, tells us UN hasn't advanced much (meaning those who pull the strings behind the UN) and therefore it's nothing to look upto, nor are any of their rulings or charters or treaties etc -
what do you consider the lack of freedom to go topless in public by women in anglophone countries in singapore and other british colonies? as compared to men who can do the same?Originally posted by fymk:Protonhybrid , you keep yapping about anglophone countries.
I am fortunate to be born in Singapore , not Saudi Arabia. I have my freedom to be a woman , to choose whoever I wish to marry , to see whoever I want to see. I am fortunate to live in Australia , where I still have my freedoms and the bonus of research opportunities there .
You keep talking about Anglophone countries.
Look at what I have written about the first human rights document decreed by Cyrus the Great of Persia. If women rights are as you think some form of an anglophone issue , I think not. Women had to fight for their right to vote even in the history of the Europe. Even in ancient Persia during Cyrus's reign, the Zoroastarians treated women with respect . There was no form of slavery - he banned it all. People were free to worship whoever they want.
So really now ...is Persia an anglophone for that aspect? Even in China's ancient history , in the peak of the Tang Dynasty , women were allowed more freedoms than their European counterparts of that time and FAR MORE than the Saudi Arabian women.
So in the context of Cyrus the Great ( since you are so adamant that the current human rights are a USA thing and therefore wrong) and China's past , women were given more rights than Saudi Arabian Women of today.
And now for my opinion, there is no way my opinion is wrong to me - it is mine. Any form of discrimination , be it racial , religious or gender based, IS WRONG.
kindly answer me this, then a lot of doubts will be clarified. -
Originally posted by fymk:
that was a reply to a post BEFORE you revealed your location in this thread.
Your comprehension is shocking. I already said I am in Australia.I have a right to criticise anything I wish. Freedom of speech , equality of women and all.
freedom of speech doesn't even exist, how does that make you have a "right" to criticize ANYTHING you like. CAN YOU CRITICIZE LKY OPENLY IN PUBLIC IN SINGAPORE? This is a singapore forum after all. among other such examples.I may not be living there but that doesn't mean that I should tolerate what is going on with the women folk there.
au contraire you SHOULD tolerate what's going on there since you've nothing to do with that place. if the news didn't hit the anglophone media, you probably wouldn't even know about it let aloen give two hoots.
So how I think Cyrus the Great will flip in his grave about your tune of imposition. The first great human rights document states contrary to what you say. Persian Empire FTW.
cyrus would probably flip in his grave that persian has been conquered and invaded and cleansed of its inhabitants so many times already, more than about what women are upto at a certain point in time after his death, that certain point being today, which is no more different than any other points in time after his death (all this assuming, cyrus can do what you say after his death) lol
you're actually so bigoted that you dont even know you're bigoted. other bigots often know they're bigoted but wont change. you otoh are a blind fanatic who wouldn't budge an inch until her agenda is fulfilled. british empire for instance (which includes singapore australia uk usa etc all of which are i suppose your primary source for shaping your world view) also had many 'justifications' and they wouldn't budge until they'd achieved all of their objectives, not that they always could do whatever they wanted.
If I had my way to IMPOSE my VALUES on the WORLD - [b]all women in the world have equal rights - I don't see anything wrong with that - Do you? After women are the ones who gave birth to men - I don't see how women should be imprisoned in their own homes, married off like some piece of property exchange, guarded by their fathers/husbands/sons and if they were not lucky -having virtually nothing to escape a loveless abusive marriage OR even to get justice for themselves.
Calling me a bigot for wanting women to be on equal terms with men and have the same rights? I find that you are an equal , if not worse, bigot for being unable to take my opinions as a woman.[/b]
many a times they argued that giving 'natives' 'independence' would lead to calamity/disaster/mismanagement and voiced support for continued governance by uk itself for many of its colonies. since many of its colonies are poor, lack basic infrastructure, education, advancement, science/technology etc would you say british empire was justifiable too?
you can't argue that JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE IT FIT you can impose your will on the world. however by doing so in this post, you've revealed yourself as a fanatic bigot and i hope you rectify that error. -
who asked for your opinion mate?Originally posted by fymk:Someone asked for my opinion. I gave it . If you cannot accept it , it's your problem. My opinion , as I repeated so many times, cannot be wrong because it is MY opinion and MINE alone. I don't see it as an imposition of anything as what you like to scream out about anglo countries.
If I think Saudi Arabia's laws towards women are wrong, I say it out. It becomes your problem if you are unable to digest MY thoughts.
if i were to give my opinions on everything frankly/with absolute freedom, i'll be booted out of this forum in no time. singapore is NOT a free place, and yet you a singaporean presumably touts your right
to freedom of speech expression blah blah blah -
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
you're talking about different topic, i dont want to divert this thread to that topic but you're just brainwashed by anglophone media propaganda.
i'm saying that we know that its wrong, because we live in a free-er world than them. from birth, we lived in security, we lived in peace, so we know that it is good.
but these people they never tasted it before, they have been living like this for generations after generations. suddenly just demolishing their old laws and "making things right" in your sights might not help them, in fact it might kill them and they will not be appreciative of it.
its like you keep a pet bird for years, then suddenly you release it into the wild to give it a free life. the bird will die because it doesn't know how to survive.
[b]
its like the iraq war. taking out saddam is good, logically,
the USA tried to impose what they felt was right, a democratic govt etc..
but the people aren't used to it, now they're confused and there's chaos. [/b]
for one saddam hussein was not only supported but recognized and had good relations with among others usa itself. rumsfeld has a widely circulating pic of him shaking hands with saddam in iraq, that was due to good relations. saddam hussein was the same person, he committed an aggression into iran, gassed kurds etc using american weaponry among others. and usa gladly supplied it.
dont fall for yankee propaganda. -
actually apart from its major faults mistakes and errors, i wouldn't find any fault with usa or uk, for that matter neither with singapore. it's only those aspects that i hate or find distasteful. though in bigger scheme of things, uk and usa are by far the world's worst 'criminals'Originally posted by fymk:What the hell are you talking about now? Since when did China come into the picture? What's with the chinese belonging to China? My my - what bigotry you have shown.
[/quote]
that was an EXAMPLE. used to clarify concepts for those who're still confused. though to be fair, it wasn't bigoted to suggested chinese belong to china, if not can you tell me what inhabitants of china (human inhabitants) are called? clearly "chinese"=inhabitants of china!I was citing the history of human rights in non anglo settings, because apparently human rights to you is an exclusive european influence.
that's such a funny joke mate. every country culture place time language locality ethnicity etc etc etc has their own set of values rights adn wrongs, dos and donts. what does "human rights" mean then? no such thing that'll apply universally.Like I said , I say what I want to , I state my opinion and if you don't like it , it's your problem .No need to show such bigotry about the overseas chinese diaspora.
like i've said already, freedom of speech doesn't exist. IF i also say what i want to, let's say about singapore, or about you, i'll be banned. WHY the banning if freedom of speech exists and it's singapore/your concern what i opine about you, not mine.
[quote]
What is your problem with USA? You seem to be quite anti american from what I can see or rather you seem to be anti western as well as anti former british colony from the disdain you have shown for Singapore and UK . -
stop trolling.Originally posted by Demonight:Yes you've made your point. Please go and rape a woman then tell the cops -
i dont think we're here to win or lose arguments. and women are treated very very differently in nonanglo cultures, as they're not all alike. anglo culture can also be said to discriminate against women openly as almost all other cultures if not all of them.Originally posted by fymk:Protonhybrid - you are actually quite hypocritical in the sense that everything related to human rights ,that opposes your view is an anglo thing and should not be thrown into the whole discussion.
You criticise me for "imposing" on another country's culture just because I voice my opinions. What about you? What's with the anti Singaporean legal system view thread on aunt agony about medical practice?
You already came in with the set view that anything that is remotely connected to the west is called imposition and therefore wrong.
[/quote]
those are your ASSERTIONS, but not FACTS! the thread on medical malpractice isn't anti-singaporean per se, unless you think singaporeans can't make mistakes, or medical malpractice cases are anti singaporean by their very nature.
nor do i come in with the view that anything connected with west is imposed by its very nature. it's only when it's imposed that i say so.
[quote]
Then when you cannot win when examples of how women are treated in non anglo cultures, you imply that overseas Chinese diaspora should return to China since you know Singapore's majority is Chinese.
Where do you come from since you claim to know foreigners treated unfairly in Singapore?
or Are you just another one of those anti american fellas . Hey not all of us like America , so give us a break.
hence your argument doesn't hold any water. and plz stick to the topic, dont talk nonessential or nonrelated issues here. -
Originally posted by Demonight:You guys do know that if you argue for Saudi (or Sharia) law you're basically advocating the legality of rape? Your mothers must be so proud
i dont think you know what you're talking about. what the rest of the "guys know" is about your mental capacity i'm afraid if this post is anything to go by. -
Oh yes I am such a fanatical bigot who wants women rights . Your topless statement is worthless . Not many women want that type of right to be topless and walking around the streets. Same rights pertain to something unrelated to anatomical differences such as the right to a job, the right to justice withou the singular need of 4 male witneses, the right to go wherever they want , the right to DRIVE.Originally posted by protonhybrid:you're actually so bigoted that you dont even know you're bigoted. other bigots often know they're bigoted but wont change. you otoh are a blind fanatic who wouldn't budge an inch until her agenda is fulfilled. british empire for instance (which includes singapore australia uk usa etc all of which are i suppose your primary source for shaping your world view) also had many 'justifications' and they wouldn't budge until they'd achieved all of their objectives, not that they always could do whatever they wanted.
many a times they argued that giving 'natives' 'independence' would lead to calamity/disaster/mismanagement and voiced support for continued governance by uk itself for many of its colonies. since many of its colonies are poor, lack basic infrastructure, education, advancement, science/technology etc would you say british empire was justifiable too?
you can't argue that JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE IT FIT you can impose your will on the world. however by doing so in this post, you've revealed yourself as a fanatic bigot and i hope you rectify that error.
Did I mention anything about colonising Saudi Arabia? Did I?
You are just a fanatical bigot who wants women subjugated to lesser beings. If you wish to have and treat a woman as your property, go to Saudi Arabia . There you can imprison your poor wife and do whatever you want to her while making sure that you have no MALE relatives around to watch.
Did I impose anything? Certainly not on Saudi Arabia . I voiced my opinion and I don't see how that IMPOSES on anyone except for men like you who think that a woman is a piece of property regardless of where they are in the world.
I hope that you will not have daughters because with a father like you , who needs family.