Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

They also will not do their research if they indulge in tactics that alienate the general public, or those that they seek to aid.

Most demonstrations will alienate most people most of the time as, in general, people prefer to act as they always have. Demonstrations like the Femen protest in question aren't necessarily meant to communicate a particular issue in detail, but to arouse curiosity that is sufficient to cause investigation by an arbitrary number of people.

This is an especially effective method of demonstration when the issue is not, as you say, easily communicable.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It's hard to change the minds of people to your perspective if they are of the opinion that you are insulting them and their culture (which can be very important in some countries). Never mind that conservative elements can now point to the decadent West and it's values as a warning against what will happen if un-Islamic values flourish.

Any public action involving women's rights in the Middle East, North Africa, or Central Asia is almost certain to involve de facto insults to the relevant culture. There's simply no way around it.

Well, unless its Turkey or Israel.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are you still of the opinion that this was a successful demonstration? How about the one in Paris? Again, there was more coverage of the group that the issue being demonstrated there.

One, rather effective, method of protest is to attract attention to your organization and then, by proxy, the issue* you intend to highlight.

So, yes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Remind me again though just how successful PETA have been in recent years, in part because of their overblown stunts that have alienated the public.

They still take in quite a few donations.

It is important to remember that, when you operate as an NPO, you need to consider what your demonstrations will do for your bottom line.




*Or issues. Sometimes it makes political sense to stage a scandalous protest against an issue that is peripherally associated with your real target.

 dogma wrote:
Most demonstrations will alienate most people most of the time as, in general, people prefer to act as they always have. Demonstrations like the Femen protest in question aren't necessarily meant to communicate a particular issue in detail, but to arouse curiosity that is sufficient to cause investigation by an arbitrary number of people.

This is an especially effective method of demonstration when the issue is not, as you say, easily communicable.

The problem is that they did not communicate the issue in any detail. They exposed their breasts and showed body paint that said "F**k Your Morals". That's not communicating an issue, that's not highlighting inequality. It's real life trolling. They got a little publicity for their actions (not not the issue) but will likely not help further discussion in the country. Any moderate trying to push for equality now has to distance themselves from that or risk guilt by association. That benefits no one except those who favour the status quo
And what part of equality is difficult to communicate? Is there nothing in the Koran to support it? What about the hadatitha? Have no religious leaders issued fatwas in favour of women?
-"The best among you is the one who is the best towards his wife" - Qur'an 4:127
-'He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women" - Hadith - Muslim, #3468
-"A woman acts for the people" - Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi #3978
-"A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man said. "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man further said, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man asked for the fourth time, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your father."" - Hadith - Bukhari 8.2
It seems to me that these are so much easier to communicate and get attention for driving equality than what FEMEN actually did. Again, its difficult to change a culture if you alienate the people who adhere to it.

 dogma wrote:
Any public action involving women's rights in the Middle East, North Africa, or Central Asia is almost certain to involve de facto insults to the relevant culture. There's simply no way around it.

Well, unless its Turkey or Israel.

There is a difference between unintentional insults, which can be forgiven much easier, and a situation were someone sets out to deliberately offend. For every action there is a reaction. If someone insults a culture without offering a constructive alternative (and also demonstrating for hardline elements why they do not favour equality) then they are not giving people a reason to engage with them or take them seriously.

 dogma wrote:
One, rather effective, method of protest is to attract attention to your organization and then, by proxy, the issue* you intend to highlight.

So, yes.

So they got short term publicity for their group, and progressed the debate not one iota. Again showing that they value self publicity over the meaningful progression of the issues they claim to raise

 dogma wrote:
They still take in quite a few donations.

It is important to remember that, when you operate as an NPO, you need to consider what your demonstrations will do for your bottom line.

You didn't answer the question unless you are measuring a protest group's success by the fact that they can raise money. There are many groups that can do that. PETA have not advanced the cause of animal rights in any meaningful way. In fact the general reaction to PETA now is to see what stunt they are pulling, chuckle/face palm as appropriate and go back to ignoring them as anything other than a source of occasional cheap laughs and wonder how anyone can support them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think there's room for multiple approaches. If a small minority of people acting against misogynistic practices and attitudes are confrontational and offensive, maybe the more reasonable and moderate folks will be welcomed a bit more easily.

I agree that there is room for multiple approaches, provided that they are constructive and advance the cause. I can't help but think that what FEMEN has done will only give the conservatives ammunition and more reason not to permit equality.

I think the issue for Femen is that doing this in the Middle East may be pointless at the moment. People outside of Tunisia know exactly what they're protesting and should be able to identify the inequality. But people outside Tunisia generally don't have the power to do much more than boo. The people within Tunisia, are unlikely to be swayed imo by their protest making it ineffective at achieving actual change. Governments of the western world already voice occasional disapproval of the treatment of women in many Middle Eastern and North African countries, but they're not gonna invade over the issue or put much pressure on the Tunisian government I don't think just cause some girls went topless.

 daedalus wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Those women were actually quite brave pulling that stunt in Arab country.

They have bigger balls than the people making light of them in this thread.

U even heresy bro?

I honestly cannot figure out what your reply means? Can you please clarify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Dreadclaw69.

You pulled some quotations from the Koran but the fact is I can quote many passages from the Koran that are used to keep women oppressed and chattel as well. The important fact that you are either oblivious to or being disengenuous about is that in the repressive Muslim societies it is the passages that are hateful against women that are selectively emphasized and enable women to be treated as chattel.

Your incredibly naive argument may sound credible on a forum because a lot of Americans are of course not well read about the Koran. The Koran is organized by chapter length but as the Prophet became older his writings reflected more and more intolerance. He was an admirable husband to his first wife and even a business partner to her but later on he became extremely intolerant of other religions and hateful toward women.

You bring up the Hadiths which really shows how little you know about things. It is the hadiths, the Koran and to a lesser extent fatwas that form the basis of the repressive system of Shariah law. If you are going to start quoting Hadiths then we also need to be informed of not only the narrative, but the chain of narrators, which collection that the hadith came from and whether or not it is a Sunni or Shia hadith.

It would be quite rude for you to quote a mostly discredited or tertiary hadith from a shia collection and pass it off as some important Suni hadith to support your arguments. I believe you would try this because of your previous Koran verse cherry picking. Of course I acknowledge you could do it out of ignorance rather than on purpose.

Now if someone who really knows wtf they are talking about logs on here, they are going to eat you alive.

JWhex wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Those women were actually quite brave pulling that stunt in Arab country.

They have bigger balls than the people making light of them in this thread.

U even heresy bro?

I honestly cannot figure out what your reply means? Can you please clarify.

It's an adaptation on a popular meme. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

JWhex wrote:
@Dreadclaw69.

You pulled some quotations from the Koran but the fact is I can quote many passages from the Koran that are used to keep women oppressed and chattel as well. The important fact that you are either oblivious to or being disengenuous about is that in the repressive Muslim societies it is the passages that are hateful against women that are selectively emphasized and enable women to be treated as chattel.

Your incredibly naive argument may sound credible on a forum because a lot of Americans are of course not well read about the Koran. The Koran is organized by chapter length but as the Prophet became older his writings reflected more and more intolerance. He was an admirable husband to his first wife and even a business partner to her but later on he became extremely intolerant of other religions and hateful toward women.

You bring up the Hadiths which really shows how little you know about things. It is the hadiths, the Koran and to a lesser extent fatwas that form the basis of the repressive system of Shariah law. If you are going to start quoting Hadiths then we also need to be informed of not only the narrative, but the chain of narrators, which collection that the hadith came from and whether or not it is a Sunni or Shia hadith.

It would be quite rude for you to quote a mostly discredited or tertiary hadith from a shia collection and pass it off as some important Suni hadith to support your arguments. I believe you would try this because of your previous Koran verse cherry picking. Of course I acknowledge you could do it out of ignorance rather than on purpose.

Now if someone who really knows wtf they are talking about logs on here, they are going to eat you alive.

That would be a gross mis-characterisation of the point I was making and would depend on significant bad faith on your part to infer that.

What I said was;
And what part of equality is difficult to communicate? Is there nothing in the Koran to support it? What about the hadatitha? Have no religious leaders issued fatwas in favour of women?

I asked if there was anything in the Koran itself that would justify better treatment for women. I then gave examples as to parts of the Koran, and the hadatithas, that the protesters could have used to better make their point, rather than flash their chests and show body paint with "F**k your morals". The best way to reform religious based societies and cultures is to change how they interpret their holy and revered texts. Every religious text has internal inconsistencies and contradictions. By putting more emphasis on the parts of these texts that value women and affords them higher status then that helps change cultural attitudes and better shape change. It also shows that more equitable treatment for women is part of their religion, and not just some imported Western idea forced on them. That way the adherents to the religion can still be faithful to their religious beliefs while affording women in their society better standing, and it helps sideline the less tolerant.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The problem is that they did not communicate the issue in any detail.

Yeah, that "Free Amina Now!" slogan written on their red banners totally wasn't detail.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

They exposed their breasts and showed body paint that said "F**k Your Morals". That's not communicating an issue, that's not highlighting inequality. It's real life trolling.

Their body paint did not say "Feth Your Morals!"

But yes, you're right, it is real life trolling. That is an effective method of protest.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And what part of equality is difficult to communicate?

The entire concept of it? Even in the US and Europe people aren't certain regarding the practical meaning of the idea.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Is there nothing in the Koran to support it? What about the hadatitha? Have no religious leaders issued fatwas in favour of women?

Sure, and those arguments have been made before. The issue isn't one of Islam, but national culture. So throwing around suwar, fatāwā, and aḥādīth won't necessarily do any good.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

If someone insults a culture without offering a constructive alternative (and also demonstrating for hardline elements why they do not favour equality) then they are not giving people a reason to engage with them or take them seriously.

Nor is that usually the point, though I don't credit FEMEN with that level of awareness.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You didn't answer the question unless you are measuring a protest group's success by the fact that they can raise money.

In many cases that is a factor in measuring the success of such groups.

Protesters have to eat too.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:I asked if there was anything in the Koran itself that would justify better treatment for women. I then gave examples as to parts of the Koran, and the hadatithas, that the protesters could have used to better make their point, rather than flash their chests and show body paint with "F**k your morals". The best way to reform religious based societies and cultures is to change how they interpret their holy and revered texts. Every religious text has internal inconsistencies and contradictions. By putting more emphasis on the parts of these texts that value women and affords them higher status then that helps change cultural attitudes and better shape change. It also shows that more equitable treatment for women is part of their religion, and not just some imported Western idea forced on them. That way the adherents to the religion can still be faithful to their religious beliefs while affording women in their society better standing, and it helps sideline the less tolerant.

It's been my belief that the best way to reform religious-based societies is with fire. But then, maybe that's just me.

I suspect we have some base differences in our own paradigms. While I recognize your desire for incremental and moderate steps towards change, I don't see that ever achieving equality; but rather just placating the status quo. If someone reads what they feel is god's word, what hope do you have to rationally discuss and compromise with them? Any deviation from that word, and you are asking them to turn against the will of their god. That is a pointless endeavour. However, as all writings on religion as based upon the idea of social control, then the only true way to strip them of their power is to educate, so that people can learn on their own that there are other, better ways to live. However, the very nature of social control through religion dictates that you cannot do this, because it is a circular violation of those controls. Thus, it is necessary to outright defy those religious social controls in order to demonstrate that they are not all-powerful, impenetrable walls; such actions can then lead to the opening for education to take hold.

When it comes to human rights violations, I personally see the desire to placate an unjust status quo as being a distasteful act of cowardice, and compromise with the oppressors as being akin to suggesting the oppressed conduct themselves as Uncle Toms.

In other words: when it is morality that keeps women down, then "feth your morals" is exactly the right stance to be taken. Asking Rosa Parks to maybe sit just one or two seats from the back of the bus is not.

dogma, you've said your piece and I've said mine. You seem content to ignore many of the arguments that I advance in the hope of picking some loose threads as you are often wont to do. We're spinning our wheels and getting nowhere so for now I don't see the point in continuing this discussion with you. Concerning the body paint I was quoting another user who posted that phrase initially, perhaps you would like to take the issue up with him.

 azazel the cat wrote:
It's been my belief that the best way to reform religious-based societies is with fire. But then, maybe that's just me.

So the best way to combat intolerance in society is to be intolerant in return, and force massive cultural change on a society that has no history of the behaviour that you want to bring about, but instead hope that it somehow takes root and flourishes. That's akin to trying to grow an orchard in the middle of the Sahara with no fertile soil, and no water supply.
Again I would direct you to Iraq and Afghanistan and ask you how well treating those societies with fire worked, and ask how well they reacted to Western liberal ideas and whether they adopted them.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I suspect we have some base differences in our own paradigms.

There certainly are differences in our paradigims

 azazel the cat wrote:
While I recognize your desire for incremental and moderate steps towards change, I don't see that ever achieving equality; but rather just placating the status quo. However, the very nature of social control through religion dictates that you cannot do this, because it is a circular violation of those controls. Thus, it is necessary to outright defy those religious social controls in order to demonstrate that they are not all-powerful, impenetrable walls; such actions can then lead to the opening for education to take hold.If someone reads what they feel is god's word, what hope do you have to rationally discuss and compromise with them? Any deviation from that word, and you are asking them to turn against the will of their god. That is a pointless endeavour. However, as all writings on religion as based upon the idea of social control, then the only true way to strip them of their power is to educate, so that people can learn on their own that there are other, better ways to live.

I am not arguing for the status quo. I have made that abundantly clear, to insist otherwise (and then develop it further in the next section quoted below) is dishonest in the extreme, and verging on an attempt to smear me.

You're right. Changing the focus of a religion to bring about social change is so unlikely that we in the West still put people to death who are not virgins when they marry, who cut their hair and beards, work the Sabbath etc. as laid out in the Bible. Or did we move away from those concepts and instead put our focus on other parts of the Bible? This change in focus and interpretation of their religious texts is what I am suggesting. That is using God's word and not asking them to turn against their religious beliefs. It is already there, we just need to nurture it and put more emphasis on it. This approach has been shown to work. Importing an idea and forcing it on a population does not work, that's been shown plenty of times before too. That we educate them that their religion does place value on women, that they are not simply chattel. That will work rather than taking a concept that is wholly alien to them and forcing it on them.
You seem to think that nothing good can come of religion and that salvation lies in just adopting Western ideals for their own good - which has been shown to be unsuccessful. Your own opinions on how to address this problem are being skewed because your opinion on religion is acting as a blinker to a workable solution, you are approaching this from a Western liberal academic perspective and are not considering the facts on the ground and what will work for the population there.

 azazel the cat wrote:
When it comes to human rights violations, I personally see the desire to placate an unjust status quo as being a distasteful act of cowardice, and compromise with the oppressors as being akin to suggesting the oppressed conduct themselves as Uncle Toms.

In other words: when it is morality that keeps women down, then "feth your morals" is exactly the right stance to be taken. Asking Rosa Parks to maybe sit just one or two seats from the back of the bus is not.

So your fall back position is the 'you're either with us, or you're against us'. No such thing as working through a problem to reach an equitable solution for the oppressed because anyone who does so is an Uncle Tom. That comes across as hugely extremist. Thankfully we managed to get past that in Northern Ireland, or else we'd still be in the middle of The Troubles.
No one is asking that women under Sharia be "slavish and excessively subservient to perceived authority figures' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom). I don't think that you can honestly say that working to reform the status of women in Islam and challenging the status quo is somehow being subservient
When dealing with a society with relatively little education, and were most of the education is provided in religious schools (not a Western based system that already had the basis for equality established) how well do you think that your sentiments will be received by the local population?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So your fall back position is the 'you're either with us, or you're against us'. No such thing as working through a problem to reach an equitable solution for the oppressed because anyone who does so is an Uncle Tom.

Yes.

When it comes to basic equality rights, there is no such thing as "an equitable solution" between the oppressive status quo and forward progress. It's one of those rare times when I see things as a binary. Like I said; you can't ask a black person to get half-way-to-the-back of the bus.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Yes.

When it comes to basic equality rights, there is no such thing as "an equitable solution" between the oppressive status quo and forward progress. It's one of those rare times when I see things as a binary. Like I said; you can't ask a black person to get half-way-to-the-back of the bus.

Yes there is. An equitable solution is getting rights for the oppressed without p*ssing off the entire country and alienating the people you want to help, and making sure the rights are well established and not a foreign concept that won't last.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Yes.

When it comes to basic equality rights, there is no such thing as "an equitable solution" between the oppressive status quo and forward progress. It's one of those rare times when I see things as a binary. Like I said; you can't ask a black person to get half-way-to-the-back of the bus.

Yes there is. An equitable solution is getting rights for the oppressed without p*ssing off the entire country and alienating the people you want to help, and making sure the rights are well established and not a foreign concept that won't last.

This might be the single most naive thing you've ever said.

I will use the Cheerios ad as an example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots. Or the gay marriage example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This might be the single most naive thing you've ever said.

I will use the Cheerios ad as an example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots. Or the gay marriage example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots.

Coming from the person who believes that you can force change upon people with fire? Or that if you aren't with us you're against us. Who seeks to reduce things to binary? Should I take that as a compliment?
In case you missed it, I said "getting rights for the oppressed without p*ssing off the entire country", but if you're trying to compare the bigoted comments from a small minority on youtube of all places, with pressing for change and for recognition of women's rights in Tunisia then I don't see how further discussion with you is going to produce any meaningful result.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This might be the single most naive thing you've ever said.

I will use the Cheerios ad as an example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots. Or the gay marriage example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots.

Coming from the person who believes that you can force change upon people with fire? Or that if you aren't with us you're against us. Who seeks to reduce things to binary? Should I take that as a compliment?
In case you missed it, I said "getting rights for the oppressed without p*ssing off the entire country", but if you're trying to compare the bigoted comments from a small minority on youtube of all places, with pressing for change and for recognition of women's rights in Tunisia then I don't see how further discussion with you is going to produce any meaningful result.

You're moving goalposts very rapidly.

Either you want to "not piss off the whole country" or else you want to "not piss off anybody". Which is it? Because the kind of equality and social change that I'm advocating will only piss off bigots. So if you think it will piss off everybody, then you are making the claim that the whole country is full of bigots. It's kind of a litmus test like that:

Q: do you believe in equality for men and women under law?
Y= good.
N= you're a bigot.

It's that easy.

Q: do you believe in equality for men and women under law?
Y= good.
N= you're a bigot.

It's that easy.

C: The person that asks the question gets a bullet in the head.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Frazzled wrote:

Q: do you believe in equality for men and women under law?
Y= good.
N= you're a bigot.

It's that easy.

C: The person that asks the question gets a bullet in the head.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

You're gonna hafta extrapolate this, because I don't get your point here.

I really want to rather stay neutral on this bare-breasted Middle East thingy.

On the one hand, personally, I appreciate any action like this as I am disgusted by the oppression of women in (most) Middle East countries on so many levels, be it culture or religion, even worse, I can't even stand the sight of women in Germany being forced to wear burkas.

On the other hand, to play devil's advocate, it seems weird to tell another nation how the West has superior morals and they need to acknowledge its superiority by applying the West's moral to their own country / countries.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're moving goalposts very rapidly.

Either you want to "not piss off the whole country" or else you want to "not piss off anybody". Which is it? Because the kind of equality and social change that I'm advocating will only piss off bigots. So if you think it will piss off everybody, then you are making the claim that the whole country is full of bigots. It's kind of a litmus test like that:
Q: do you believe in equality for men and women under law?
Y= good.
N= you're a bigot.

It's that easy.

No goalposts are being moved and I am making no such claim. You are taking your own personal perceptions and foisting them on me and my argument. I would appreciate it if you did not construct such strawman, especially given your distaste for them.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Q: do you believe in equality for men and women under law?
Y= good.
N= you're a bigot.

It's that easy.

C: The person that asks the question gets a bullet in the head.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

You're gonna hafta extrapolate this, because I don't get your point here.

Just saying I reject your binary solution. It usually doesn't work.

here's some more alternatives.
1. Anyone saying "N you're a bigot" is exterminated. In many of the ME countries this is a valid third option.
2. Compromising is also a method of moving forward.
3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a bigot. Thinking in such a nonsensical manner hardens other viewpoints (see #1). Most issues involve a whole plethora of causes.

 Frazzled wrote:

Just saying I reject your binary solution. It usually doesn't work.

here's some more alternatives.
1. Anyone saying "N you're a bigot" is exterminated. In many of the ME countries this is a valid third option.
2. Compromising is also a method of moving forward.
3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a bigot. Thinking in such a nonsensical manner hardens other viewpoints (see #1). Most issues involve a whole plethora of causes.

It is quite telling though that someone who vociferously object to other people using fallacies in their arguments would be so quick to base his argument in one himself;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us
The statement generally is a descriptive statement identifying the beliefs of the speaker(s), and thus state a basic assumption, not a logical conclusion. It may also be interpreted as a speech act. It is sometimes interpreted as a splitting or a false dilemma, which is an informal fallacy.
Some see the statement as a way of persuading others to choose sides in a conflict which does not afford the luxury of neutrality.[1] Only when there is absolutely no middle ground or additional alternatives does the phrase hold validity as a logical conclusion. The phrases are a form of argumentation.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
A false dilemma (also called the fallacy of the false alternative, false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of the excluded middle, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.

Frazzled wrote:
1. Anyone saying "N you're a bigot" is exterminated. In many of the ME countries this is a valid third option.
2. Compromising is also a method of moving forward.
3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a bigot. Thinking in such a nonsensical manner hardens other viewpoints (see #1). Most issues involve a whole plethora of causes.

1. Are you advocating for cowardice in the face of adversity?
2. As far as I'm concerned, there are no compromises when it comes to human rights.
3. When I'm suggesting equal rights for women, I'm pretty sure anyone that disagrees based upon scripture is a bigot. If you've got an example to suggest otherwise, I'm open to hear it. However, intolerance based upon religious conviction is the very definition of bigotry, harkening back to the word's Norman origins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Just saying I reject your binary solution. It usually doesn't work.

here's some more alternatives.
1. Anyone saying "N you're a bigot" is exterminated. In many of the ME countries this is a valid third option.
2. Compromising is also a method of moving forward.
3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a bigot. Thinking in such a nonsensical manner hardens other viewpoints (see #1). Most issues involve a whole plethora of causes.

It is quite telling though that someone who vociferously object to other people using fallacies in their arguments would be so quick to base his argument in one himself;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us
The statement generally is a descriptive statement identifying the beliefs of the speaker(s), and thus state a basic assumption, not a logical conclusion. It may also be interpreted as a speech act. It is sometimes interpreted as a splitting or a false dilemma, which is an informal fallacy.
Some see the statement as a way of persuading others to choose sides in a conflict which does not afford the luxury of neutrality.[1] Only when there is absolutely no middle ground or additional alternatives does the phrase hold validity as a logical conclusion. The phrases are a form of argumentation.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
A false dilemma (also called the fallacy of the false alternative, false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of the excluded middle, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.

Let me be clear as day on this:

Where equality for men & women are concerned: THERE. IS. NO. MIDDLE. GROUND.

The dichotomy is not false. Either you believe in equal rights or you do not.

1. Are you advocating for cowardice in the face of adversity?

ER…what?

2. As far as I'm concerned, there are no compromises when it comes to human rights.

No what you argue to be human rights and what you argue to be compromises. Your standards do not apply outside of your opinion, whether or not I agree with the underlying “right.”.

3. When I'm suggesting equal rights for women, I'm pretty sure anyone that disagrees based upon scripture is a bigot.

-Sure is an opinion.

If you've got an example to suggest otherwise, I'm open to hear it. However, intolerance based upon religious conviction is the very definition of bigotry, harkening back to the word's Norman origins.

-define intolerance. Define why its intolerance? You have to define what the definition of is is before you can make, well opinions.

Let me be clear as day on this:

Where equality for men & women are concerned: THERE. IS. NO. MIDDLE. GROUND.

The dichotomy is not false. Either you believe in MY DEFINITION OF equal rights or you do not.

Corrected your typo.
After all, if everyone believed as you do, there would be no change. Everyone's view of, well everything, is based on their own perceptions and beliefs.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Let me be clear as day on this:

Where equality for men & women are concerned: THERE. IS. NO. MIDDLE. GROUND.

The dichotomy is not false. Either you believe in equal rights or you do not.

I was speaking of your post "Either you want to "not piss off the whole country" or else you want to "not piss off anybody". Which is it?". I have been clear as day throughout this that I'm in favour of women's rights, we just differ on the way to achieve it. I prefer a more long term solution to properly establish these rights in a country where they are an alien concept. You seem to be taking a lesson from GW Bush's playbook

*gets popcorn*

 Frazzled wrote:

1. Are you advocating for cowardice in the face of adversity?

ER…what?

Azrael's argument (with me at least) is that equality can be brought to religious societies through "fire" (because that worked out so well in Afghanistan...), that moderate steps and slow and steady progress to establish these rights are "placating the status quo", and that " the desire to placate an unjust status quo as being a distasteful act of cowardice, and compromise with the oppressors as being akin to suggesting the oppressed conduct themselves as Uncle Toms."

 Sigvatr wrote:
*gets popcorn*

I got ya brah!

while I agree with the idea of spreading human rights to these more backwards places,

I dont think simply taking off shirts and making a commotion is very effective aside from gaining publicity.

Just like a muslim protesting in new york that women should be covered wont really change NY's veiwpoint, I doubt this will change the muslims viewpoint.

I cant help but think that until its the muslim women doing the protesting that nothing will change, maybe femen should be more involved with them somehow?

either way, at least they are trying to make a difference, kudos to them, I hope they dont get long sentences.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Let me be clear as day on this:

Where equality for men & women are concerned: THERE. IS. NO. MIDDLE. GROUND.

The dichotomy is not false. Either you believe in equal rights or you do not.

I was speaking of your post "Either you want to "not piss off the whole country" or else you want to "not piss off anybody". Which is it?". I have been clear as day throughout this that I'm in favour of women's rights, we just differ on the way to achieve it. I prefer a more long term solution to properly establish these rights in a country where they are an alien concept. You seem to be taking a lesson from GW Bush's playbook

Ah, I see. Let me be clear, as I suspect we have been attacking different points, then. I was not, presenting those two options as a dichotomy from which a person must take a side, I was trying to clarify which of the two statements you were implying, as it seemed previously as though you were conflating the two. My point in response was that the "whole country" will not be pissed off, only the bigots will be. However, I do see that I could have phrased it better so as to prevent the confusion. However, I have presented a with-us-or-against-us dichotomy regarding equality and I will stand by that.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

1. Are you advocating for cowardice in the face of adversity?

ER…what?

Azrael's argument (with me at least) is that equality can be brought to religious societies through "fire" (because that worked out so well in Afghanistan...), that moderate steps and slow and steady progress to establish these rights are "placating the status quo", and that " the desire to placate an unjust status quo as being a distasteful act of cowardice, and compromise with the oppressors as being akin to suggesting the oppressed conduct themselves as Uncle Toms."

You basically have the right of it here; however my question put to Frazzled is in response to his apparent suggestion of shrikning away from adversity with his comment about "option C - bullet to the head to whoever asks the question". I'm not sure how to interpret that other than "yes the status quo is unjust, but you'll be harmed for speaking against it, so you shouldn't". I call that cowardice.

 easysauce wrote:
while I agree with the idea of spreading human rights to these more backwards places,

I dont think simply taking off shirts and making a commotion is very effective aside from gaining publicity.

Just like a muslim protesting in new york that women should be covered wont really change NY's veiwpoint, I doubt this will change the muslims viewpoint.

I cant help but think that until its the muslim women doing the protesting that nothing will change, maybe femen should be more involved with them somehow?

either way, at least they are trying to make a difference, kudos to them, I hope they dont get long sentences.

Agree. That also notes the dichotomy. While I agree with Azazel on intent (women's rights) I disagree on the my way or the highway route. After all, the other guy has his own interpretation of human rights and this leads down the path to "disagree with me and people are going to die." That solution is a time a honored solution in the area we're discussing, like it or not.

I'm not sure how to interpret that other than "yes the status quo is unjust, but you'll be harmed for speaking against it, so you shouldn't". I call that cowardice.

Its your exact argument, turned on its head. You want to destroy them with fire. They want to put you against a wall. You both end up dead.
When Frazzled is the mellow peacenik of the thread, YOU KNOW something has gone terribly wrong...

By the way, everyone, please remember that there are rules in the OT forum, so please don't make +1 style posts.