You can say the XXXX values are wrong according to your values....but that does not make them universally wrong, just different to yours.

I've always had a problem with this argument. In some cultures, stoning gays (killing them) is acceptable but I assert it should be universally wrong. In some cultures, female children are married off to adult men but that should be universally wrong. In some cultures, honor killings are A-OK, that's alls universal bullshit. In some cultures slavery is OK, but more bullshit. In some cultures, setting young ladies on fire because some guy wouldn't marry them is OK.

That's all true and I doubt that it was terribly long ago that that would have been permitted in the UAE as well. Laws in place now, while not being ideal by a long stretch, have evolved to become somewhat less barbaric and more humane. One would expect there will be further evolution towards more universally shared values, but that comes with economic development, more inter-cultural exchanges and greater amounts of education.

You can say the XXXX values are wrong according to your values....but that does not make them universally wrong, just different to yours.

I've always had a problem with this argument. In some cultures, stoning gays (killing them) is acceptable but I assert it should be universally wrong. In some cultures, female children are married off to adult men but that should be universally wrong. In some cultures, honor killings are A-OK, that's alls universal bullshit. In some cultures slavery is OK, but more bullshit. In some cultures, setting young ladies on fire because some guy wouldn't marry them is OK.

Of course you will think it should be universally wrong. Just as some Christians think that anal sex "should be/is" universally wrong.

Just as some anti-abortionists can justify murder to try to stop abortion.

I guess that you would not hold with the anti-abortionists extremists? Yet they hold their beliefs as strongly as you hold your opinion about paedophiles.

All I am saying, without condoning paedophilia, wife beating, gay bashing, or honour killings, is that people hold their opinions and none of them are factually "right" or "wrong"....only in their own minds.

If you have a problem with this argument, I suggest you ponder it a bit longer.

Lets talk about the subject at hand; Wife beating. I personally despise domestic violence and the perpetrators of it, particularly (but not only) in Western countries where it is outlawed. Can you put forth an unemotive, unopinionated, fact based argument to show that the act of wife beating is "wrong"? I can actually think of some natural phenomena that would suggest that male dominance by violence is an evolutionary factor and thus "normal and natural".....not that I would like to put forth that argument, but be aware that it is there.

You can say the XXXX values are wrong according to your values....but that does not make them universally wrong, just different to yours.

I've always had a problem with this argument. In some cultures, stoning gays (killing them) is acceptable but I assert it should be universally wrong. In some cultures, female children are married off to adult men but that should be universally wrong. In some cultures, honor killings are A-OK, that's alls universal bullshit. In some cultures slavery is OK, but more bullshit. In some cultures, setting young ladies on fire because some guy wouldn't marry them is OK.

Of course you will think it should be universally wrong. Just as some Christians think that anal sex "should be/is" universally wrong.

Just as some anti-abortionists can justify murder to try to stop abortion.

I guess that you would not hold with the anti-abortionists extremists? Yet they hold their beliefs as strongly as you hold your opinion about paedophiles.

All I am saying, without condoning paedophilia, wife beating, gay bashing, or honour killings, is that people hold their opinions and none of them are factually "right" or "wrong"....only in their own minds.

If you have a problem with this argument, I suggest you ponder it a bit longer.

Lets talk about the subject at hand; Wife beating. I personally despise domestic violence and the perpetrators of it, particularly (but not only) in Western countries where it is outlawed. Can you put forth an unemotive, unopinionated, fact based argument to show that the act of wife beating is "wrong"? I can actually think of some natural phenomena that would suggest that male dominance by violence is an evolutionary factor and thus "normal and natural".....not that I would like to put forth that argument, but be aware that it is there.

I don't think you had better ask for this in a room full of women. I doubt you would get out alive.

I understand your proposition...but it could also as the same of pedophiles. Which would be ridiculous to even discuss...

You can say the XXXX values are wrong according to your values....but that does not make them universally wrong, just different to yours.

I've always had a problem with this argument. In some cultures, stoning gays (killing them) is acceptable but I assert it should be universally wrong. In some cultures, female children are married off to adult men but that should be universally wrong. In some cultures, honor killings are A-OK, that's alls universal bullshit. In some cultures slavery is OK, but more bullshit. In some cultures, setting young ladies on fire because some guy wouldn't marry them is OK.

Of course you will think it should be universally wrong. Just as some Christians think that anal sex "should be/is" universally wrong.

Just as some anti-abortionists can justify murder to try to stop abortion.

I guess that you would not hold with the anti-abortionists extremists? Yet they hold their beliefs as strongly as you hold your opinion about paedophiles.

All I am saying, without condoning paedophilia, wife beating, gay bashing, or honour killings, is that people hold their opinions and none of them are factually "right" or "wrong"....only in their own minds.

If you have a problem with this argument, I suggest you ponder it a bit longer.

Abortion isn't a cultural thing. Were starting to talk apples and oranges. I've listed things that have been around for centuries are accepted parts of some cultures.

I can say confidently that outright murder should be a universal wrong. The case in Texas where an Egyptian immigrant shot his two teenage daughters dead because he didn't like them dating "infidels" is wrong (honor killing). <deleted> PC-multiculturalism in that instance.

Lets talk about the subject at hand; Wife beating. I personally despise domestic violence and the perpetrators of it, particularly (but not only) in Western countries where it is outlawed. Can you put forth an unemotive, unopinionated, fact based argument to show that the act of wife beating is "wrong"? I can actually think of some natural phenomena that would suggest that male dominance by violence is an evolutionary factor and thus "normal and natural".....not that I would like to put forth that argument, but be aware that it is there.

"an evolutionary factor"? I guess there is some validity to that. Which implies some people (muslims in this case) haven't evolved as much as people in western societies. Hmmm.

You can say the XXXX values are wrong according to your values....but that does not make them universally wrong, just different to yours.

I've always had a problem with this argument. In some cultures, stoning gays (killing them) is acceptable but I assert it should be universally wrong. In some cultures, female children are married off to adult men but that should be universally wrong. In some cultures, honor killings are A-OK, that's alls universal bullshit. In some cultures slavery is OK, but more bullshit. In some cultures, setting young ladies on fire because some guy wouldn't marry them is OK.

Of course you will think it should be universally wrong. Just as some Christians think that anal sex "should be/is" universally wrong.

Just as some anti-abortionists can justify murder to try to stop abortion.

I guess that you would not hold with the anti-abortionists extremists? Yet they hold their beliefs as strongly as you hold your opinion about paedophiles.

All I am saying, without condoning paedophilia, wife beating, gay bashing, or honour killings, is that people hold their opinions and none of them are factually "right" or "wrong"....only in their own minds.

If you have a problem with this argument, I suggest you ponder it a bit longer.

Lets talk about the subject at hand; Wife beating. I personally despise domestic violence and the perpetrators of it, particularly (but not only) in Western countries where it is outlawed. Can you put forth an unemotive, unopinionated, fact based argument to show that the act of wife beating is "wrong"? I can actually think of some natural phenomena that would suggest that male dominance by violence is an evolutionary factor and thus "normal and natural".....not that I would like to put forth that argument, but be aware that it is there.

I don't think you had better ask for this in a room full of women. I doubt you would get out alive.

I understand your proposition...but it could also as the same of pedophiles. Which would be ridiculous to even discuss...

No. I don't think there would be any peadophiles that commit the act oblivious to the "wrongness"....they commit their despicable acts despite it.

Their problem is deeper than I could fathom, and nothing to do with what we are talking about; "moral opinion".

"an evolutionary factor"? I guess there is some validity to that. Which implies some people (muslims in this case) haven't evolved as much as people in western societies. Hmmm.

On the contrary, Western society has developed into an anti-evolutionary PC society....evidence of this is that genetic psychopaths, paedophiles and other degenerates (a carefully chosen word) of all description are allowed to procreate and continue the degenerate genetic line in the human gene pool.

Again, I hear ya...but it's not a "moral opinion" I would like to debate. Open and shut for me. Violence of any sorts is not a good thing...

Again, I hear ya...but it's not a "moral opinion" I would like to debate. Open and shut for me. Violence of any sorts is not a good thing...

As things stand with the global community, violence, for or against...or to what degree, IS a moral stance.

So you think that beating women is OK as long as no marks can be seen?

That's not my belief or opinion at all, nor did I imply that. From your response, can I assume that you do not find it obectionable that your wife can blow every man in the street then get half your house?

I do not understand how that makes beating women up somehow OK.

I do not understand how you can jump from asking if it is OK to assuming it is OK. But never mind.

The point is, that morals are merely opinions. It is not an indisputable Law of Nature that wife beating is "wrong". You have your set of values, and Arabs have their set....... You can say the Arab values are wrong according to your values... but that does not make them universally wrong, just different to yours.

quite interesting is that "we Farangs" condemn the same practices, traditions, punishments, etc. in other cultures which "we" practised not only for centuries but for a couple of milleniae. stoning for example is a breeze compared to what delinquents had to endure only two or three centuries ago in Europe. wife beating? the done thing in Europe in olden times. children beating? my brother and me had marks on our behinds for a couple of weeks when our father disciplined us (because we deserved it!). some holier than thou citizens of the Greatest Nation on Earth™ point to the Saudis who abolished slavery in 1966 and shout "unbelievable!" but forget Little Rock, Arkansas 1966.

can anybody name an arab or muslim nation that burned witches on the stake which was a common occurence in a dozen european states? were any Christian or Jews tortured or killed in any muslim nation by a muslim 'inquisition' because they refused to convert to Islam?

Comparing monstrous ancient practices with modern ones are happening now and can be stopped is more than slightly absurd. It is impossible to change history.

Comparing monstrous ancient practices with modern ones are happening now and can be stopped is more than slightly absurd. It is impossible to change history.

Can be stopped? How? Would you take the route of the anti-abortionist extremists and kill the perpetrators of the immoral acts you despise? Perhaps invade the country, or bomb it to oblivion?

That would stop it.

Comparing monstrous ancient practices with modern ones are happening now and can be stopped is more than slightly absurd. It is impossible to change history.

except for the year 1966 i did not "compare" anything but stated facts which should generate some thoughts in the gray cells of anybody who does not wear blinkers.

but as one can see... exceptions prove the rule.

my brother and me had marks on our behinds for a couple of weeks when our father disciplined us...

That might explain a lot Herr Naam.

"stoning for example is a breeze..."

"can anybody name an arab or muslim nation that burned witches on the stake..."

"wife beating? the done thing in Europe in olden times."

I still find it difficult to believe - no matter what one's political beliefs - that anyone would make justifications for wife-beating.

Comparing monstrous ancient practices with modern ones are happening now and can be stopped is more than slightly absurd. It is impossible to change history.

Can be stopped? How?

By condemning wife-beating - not by making excuses about why it is really no big thaaang.

my brother and me had marks on our behinds for a couple of weeks when our father disciplined us...

That might explain a lot Herr Naam.

"stoning for example is a breeze..."

"can anybody name an arab or muslim nation that burned witches on the stake..."

"wife beating? the done thing in Europe in olden times."

I still find it difficult to believe - no matter what one's political beliefs - that anyone would make justifications for wife-beating.

i repeat what i said before. multiple stories, not only in Thaivisa but globally, are evidence that wife beating can bloody well be justified and that goes for husband beating too. hypocrites will of course never agree but they justify the killing and maiming of women, children and whatever innocent people the cluster and smart bombs and land mines tear into pieces as long as it is sanctioned (or not) by the Yewnighted Nashions.

personally i find it difficult to understand why especially citizens from nations who, without being attacked, invaded half a dozen countries during the last 50 years, killing by various means approximately 2 million human beings, point the finger to a foreign Judge's "wife beating" ruling.

**removed**

i repeat what i said before. multiple stories, not only in Thaivisa but globally, are evidence that wife beating can bloody well be justified...

It seems that is your opinion, but what does all the far-out political rhetoric and needless insults have to do with this topic?

personally i find it difficult to understand why especially citizens from nations who, without being attacked, invaded half a dozen countries during the last 50 years, killing by various means approximately 2 million human beings, point the finger to a foreign Judge's "wife beating" ruling.

*removed*

Why go back 50 years? Why not 70? Then you'd find a country that invaded 10-20 nations in just a few short years which led to the early death of ~60 million people. You remember, your Vater wore their uniform. You apparently *removed*

Comparing monstrous ancient practices with modern ones are happening now and can be stopped is more than slightly absurd. It is impossible to change history.

Can be stopped? How? Would you take the route of the anti-abortionist extremists and kill the perpetrators of the immoral acts you despise? Perhaps invade the country, or bomb it to oblivion?

That would stop it.

In my country we arrest the extremists you are talking about and throw them in jail (anti-abortion extremists who murder doctors such as Eric Rudolph or George Tiller). Other countries that have ended up being invaded have no interest in arresting their murderous extremists and that's been their mistake. They should stick to terrorizing countries which they KNOW wouldn't or couldn't fight back - countries like Germany or NZ for example.

were any Christian or Jews tortured or killed in any muslim nation by a muslim 'inquisition' because they refused to convert to Islam?

Maybe not Christians / Jews - but in Persia (Zoroastrian and other beliefs), North Africa (animism and other beliefs), Spain, there were entire populations wiped out by the crusading Bani Hillel and other newly-converted islamic tribes.

were any Christian or Jews tortured or killed in any muslim nation by a muslim 'inquisition' because they refused to convert to Islam?

The Jews have never tried to covert anybody. How do they always seem to get dragged into it.

Comparing monstrous ancient practices with modern ones are happening now and can be stopped is more than slightly absurd. It is impossible to change history.

Can be stopped? How? Would you take the route of the anti-abortionist extremists and kill the perpetrators of the immoral acts you despise? Perhaps invade the country, or bomb it to oblivion?

That would stop it.

In my country we arrest the extremists you are talking about and throw them in jail (anti-abortion extremists who murder doctors such as Eric Rudolph or George Tiller). Other countries that have ended up being invaded have no interest in arresting their murderous extremists and that's been their mistake. They should stick to terrorizing countries which they KNOW wouldn't or couldn't fight back - countries like Germany or NZ for example.

Yes, in your country you throw the murderers in gaol...of course. I was not picking on your country, per se, just because it has more than it's fair share of nutter anti-abortionists.....my point is that there exists in the world people such as them that have their beliefs.

(my calling them nutters is a judgement call on my part, too)

The majority in your country believe that murderers should go to gaol, even if they murdered with "the colour of right", hence they are locked up. What makes your country's rule of law any "righter" than another country's rule of law, both countries basing their law largely on the religious, ethical, or moral foundations of the majority?

New Zealanders, by and large, believe that some parts of American law are silly. We read about stories of the litigiousness and the (to us) ridiculous rulings where criminals can sue the people they were burglarising etc.....but live and let live, we snigger and carry on. It's American law, and it does not affect our lives, so let them have it their way, we'll have it our way.

New Zealanders, by and large, believe that some parts of American law are silly.

I'm sure that New Zealand has its share of laws and legal proceedings that others would find silly. In fact, we have read about some of them right here in OTB.

personally i find it difficult to understand why especially citizens from nations who, without being attacked, invaded half a dozen countries during the last 50 years, killing by various means approximately 2 million human beings, point the finger to a foreign Judge's "wife beating" ruling.

**removed**

It is indeed impressive and hypocritical for a German citizen to place the caveat of, "invaded half a dozen countries DURING THE LAST 50 YEARS." (Caps added)

This rather conspicuous lapse precludes anything that happened DURING THE 20 YEARS previous to his caveat.

It is also interesting to note Mr. Naam has pointed out the killing of "approximately 2 million human beings" during that same 50 year period while completely ignoring the "approximately 48 million human beings" killed by the master race and their minions.

It should also be pointed out Mr. Naam has now stated it is acceptable to beat your wife. Could there be a misplaced gene in here somewhere?

Don't do as I do. Do as I say do.

the Greatest Nation on Earth

This old tired line would not make much sense unless the crimes of Nazi Germany were ignored.

New Zealanders, by and large, believe that some parts of American law are silly.

I'm sure that New Zealand has its share of laws and legal proceedings that others would find silly. In fact, we have read about some of them right here in OTB.

No doubt. You punctuate my point quite nicely. Thanks.

It's a pity, though, that you pick the one sentence and do not include the others that expand on the point....ie, live and let live etc.

It is also interesting to note Mr. Naam has pointed out the killing of "approximately 2 million human beings" during that same 50 year period while completely ignoring the "approximately 48 million human beings" killed by the master race and their minions.

Mr Naam's trap worked. he expected a ridiculous rebuttal containing the justification "so what? you have killed many more than we did!"

It is also interesting to note Mr. Naam has pointed out the killing of "approximately 2 million human beings" during that same 50 year period while completely ignoring the "approximately 48 million human beings" killed by the master race and their minions.

Mr Naam's trap worked. he expected a ridiculous rebuttal containing the justification "so what? you have killed many more than we did!"

Comparing America's wars with Germany's? That's a pretty ignorant trap that just back-fired in your face. While the US has targetted terrorists, communists intent on subjugating their populations (NVA, North Korea), Imperial Japanese who butchered their way across the Paciifc and Nazis, Germany targetted women, children in striped pajamas, doctors, musicians, little girls hiding in her attic in Amsterdam, etc, etc. Was Germany trying to stop Poland from invading Russia, is that why they went in? Or trying to protect Holland from France?

It is also interesting to note Mr. Naam has pointed out the killing of "approximately 2 million human beings" during that same 50 year period while completely ignoring the "approximately 48 million human beings" killed by the master race and their minions.

Mr Naam's trap worked. he expected a ridiculous rebuttal containing the justification "so what? you have killed many more than we did!"

Comparing America's wars with Germany's? That's a pretty ignorant trap that just back-fired in your face. While the US has targetted terrorists, communists intent on subjugating their populations (NVA, North Korea), Imperial Japanese who butchered their way across the Paciifc and Nazis, Germany targetted women, children in striped pajamas, doctors, musicians, little girls hiding in her attic in Amsterdam, etc, etc. Was Germany trying to stop Poland from invading Russia, is that why they went in? Or trying to protect Holland from France?

You point is taken by everyone, I'm sure, but lets not forget how this sideline started; with Naam asking about the hypocrasy of people, in this case people that support the killing of women and children (and justify it by the term "collateral damage").

Yet another example of who is "right"?

Hitler MUST have been wrong, because he lost the war.

There's no logic in that statement unless karma and divine intervention and suchlike are real.

New Zealanders, by and large, believe that some parts of American law are silly. We read about stories of the litigiousness and the (to us) ridiculous rulings where criminals can sue the people they were burglarising etc.....but live and let live, we snigger and carry on. It's American law, and it does not affect our lives, so let them have it their way, we'll have it our way.

Here's a little fact that may surprise you - DEMOCRATS are the one supporting these crazy laws. The REPUBLICANS are for tort reform which would limit these crazy lawsuits but the Dems block them whenever they can. Why? Because The American Assc of Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) since 1989 has donated 90% or more to the Democratic Party. The trial lawyer lobbyists have bought the Democrats. See for yourself:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065

Did you notice that tort reform was off the table during last year's health care negotiations in the US? Obama blamed doctors, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies but left lawyers alone. Frivilous Lawsuits awarding massive millions (of which the lawyers get to pocket at least one third) to patients is a cause of the high cost of health care in America. The cost of malpractice insurance doctors and hospitals have to take out is passed on to the people.

ANYWAY, it's interesting that it is soooo important to some people to disagree with others that they will even defend wife beating. That's just nuts.

another one who fell for the trap

quote: "invaded half a dozen countries during the last 50 years"

explanation: "last 50 years = 1960 > 2010

claim: "While the US has targetted terrorists, communists intent on subjugating their populations (NVA, North Korea), Imperial Japanese who butchered their way across the Paciifc and Nazis, Germany targetted women, children in striped pajamas, doctors, musicians, little girls hiding in her attic in Amsterdam..."

facit: claim = 99% bull