How to beat your islamic wife. tutorial video

street shooter

unreal
http://www.filecabi.net/video/mwifebeatings.html

michaelkeys

street shooter wrote: unreal
http://www.filecabi.net/video/mwifebeatings.html

That guy seems like a "moderate" amongst the ones I've heard...sheesh.

doctorj

Interesting. Given how many Western men inflict physical violence on their wives, apparently without fear of reprisal from God or socieity, I wonder if it would be better if more of them followed his guidelines?

All societies have the same dilemma with various kinds of bad stuff that still happens: do you prohibit, knowing it'll be hard or impossible to stamp it out, or do you go for harm reduction, knowing you're condoning a lesser evil? The line will be drawn differently by different cultures on different issues.

armchair_warrior

some of my online friends like this post. but they were like old . hehe i guess its been around for a while.

michaelkeys

doctorj wrote: Interesting. Given how many Western men inflict physical violence on their wives, apparently without fear of reprisal from God or socieity, I wonder if it would be better if more of them followed his guidelines?

Well, the difference is that we do not, under any circumstances condone spousal abuse as a society while the gentleman in question and those he represents find it acceptable as long as guidelines are followed. (Yeah, that would go over well in these parts...)

And perhaps the wife-beating individuals in Western society may not fear consequence, but that doesn't mean there aren't social and/or legal ramifications to their actions that they'll have to deal with, regardless.

doctorj

MichaelKeys wrote:

Well, the difference is that we do not, under any circumstances condone spousal abuse as a society while the gentleman in question and those he represents find it acceptable as long as guidelines are followed. (Yeah, that would go over well in these parts...)

Certainly. Then again, this is the society that condoned millions of slaves just 150 years ago, and currently condones preventive war, detention without trial, extraordinary rendition and certain forms of torture, repression by brutal dictators, the burning of carbon, guns in homes, lack of equality for homosexuals, non-universal suffrage, starvation and disease among the poor, corporal punishment of children, and ordinary things we haven't yet worked out might be wrong. We used to condone spousal abuse; good thing we don't anymore and a shame some societies still do.

escap

doctorj wrote: [quote=MichaelKeys]

Well, the difference is that we do not, under any circumstances condone spousal abuse as a society while the gentleman in question and those he represents find it acceptable as long as guidelines are followed. (Yeah, that would go over well in these parts...)

Certainly. Then again, this is the society that condoned millions of slaves just 150 years ago, and currently condones preventive war, detention without trial, extraordinary rendition and certain forms of torture, repression by brutal dictators, the burning of carbon, guns in homes, lack of equality for homosexuals, non-universal suffrage, starvation and disease among the poor, corporal punishment of children, and ordinary things we haven't yet worked out might be wrong. We used to condone spousal abuse; good thing we don't anymore and a shame some societies still do.

Strong words, doctorj, strong words. I could quibble over whether this country really "condones" a lot of the things you mention, but I get your point. Still, you really put the burning of carbon and gun ownership up there with slavery and torture? Most countries have put slavery and torture behind them, but name me a country that doesn't burn carbon. And gun ownership may be a point of policy disagreement and arguably leads to higher levels of violence, but is not of itself the moral equivalent of the other far more heinous points you raised.

Frankly, I even find the western world's abhorrence of all forms of physical punishment a bit moralistic--ie, I don't think spanking a child constitutes a great evil.

laura

Certainly if one is making such a list, the barbarous treatment of animals on farms and in laboratories should be on it ... "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi

michaelkeys

laura wrote: Certainly if one is making such a list, the barbarous treatment of animals on farms and in laboratories should be on it ... "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi

Is that his original quote? 'Cause I've seen it as "...by the way its ______ are treated" and the blank filled at different times with 'homeless', 'mentally ill', 'poor', and on and on...Just curious.

michaelkeys

escap wrote:
Strong words, doctorj, strong words. I could quibble over whether this country really "condones" a lot of the things you mention, but I get your point.

...I don't think spanking a child constitutes a great evil.

I'm with you on both counts.

laura

MichaelKeys wrote: [quote=laura]Certainly if one is making such a list, the barbarous treatment of animals on farms and in laboratories should be on it ... "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi

Is that his original quote? 'Cause I've seen it as "...by the way its ______ are treated" and the blank filled at different times with 'homeless', 'mentally ill', 'poor', and on and on...Just curious.
Gosh, I don't know. I've only ever seen it as 'animals'.

doctorj

escap wrote:
Strong words, doctorj, strong words. I could quibble over whether this country really "condones" a lot of the things you mention, but I get your point. Still, you really put the burning of carbon and gun ownership up there with slavery and torture? Most countries have put slavery and torture behind them, but name me a country that doesn't burn carbon. And gun ownership may be a point of policy disagreement and arguably leads to higher levels of violence, but is not of itself the moral equivalent of the other far more heinous points you raised.

My point is not that these things are all equal, it's that societies move on, and some things that were once ordinary are now considered barbaric, and to a lesser extent, vice versa. And also that contemporary societies differ quite a lot in what is currently considered right and wrong.

For example, everyone burns carbon now, but maybe our descendents will consider that the moral equivalent of slavery or wife beating.

Lest we too easily see ourselves as morally superior, I find myself wondering what is the greater evil: an Arab disciplining his wife according to these rules, or the same Arab watching his children get blown up by a bomb launched by the will of your elected congress and president?

escap wrote:
Frankly, I even find the western world's abhorrence of all forms of physical punishment a bit moralistic--ie, I don't think spanking a child constitutes a great evil.

So, many people in the US today say disciplining a child physically is ok, even by schoolteachers rather than parents, as long as you stick to similar rules espoused by our friend in the video. But disciplining your wife in the same fashion is abhorrent and illegal here. Fair enough. Yet there are some countries where physically disciplining a child will land you in prison, and others where physically disciplining your wife won't. And in the latter kind of country, maybe a place of tribal rule rather than national rule of law, I could imagine our friend's message of what is and isn't acceptable to Allah to be a relative force for good not evil. We can poke fun at or express outrage at his message, but we weren't the intended audience nor this the anticipated context.

sweet tea

there used to be rules about it here, you know, like the okay-as-long-as-the-stick-is-not-thicker-than-your-thumb rule. that didn't make it okay to "discipline" someone who should be a partner, in my book.

i find it hard to see two sides to the issue of being physically hurt by someone who is supposed to love and protect you.

escap

Ah, doctorj, I think I misunderstood you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that we in the west should be hesitant to pass moral judgment, because we ourselves are not perfect, and furthermore that notions of morality change across time and culture. If this is in fact what you are saying, then I agree with you 100%.

brooklynpotter

do we know that this is the actual translation, or a fabricated one to make some middle eastern men look horrid?

doctorj

escap wrote: Ah, doctorj, I think I misunderstood you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that we in the west should be hesitant to pass moral judgment, because we ourselves are not perfect, and furthermore that notions of morality change across time and culture. If this is in fact what you are saying, then I agree with you 100%.

Right, that's the gist of it.

Also: this country happens to be at war. The "look at the evil islamist" game just seems simplistic, and reminds me of propaganda.

doctorj

laura wrote: Certainly if one is making such a list, the barbarous treatment of animals on farms and in laboratories should be on it ... "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi

I take it you've never had to go through the rigors of clearing an animal ethics committee in order to perform laboratory research, or you wouldn't call the treatment barbarous.

Also: Gandhi was no zoologist. Where do you draw the line? I worked with live rat brains in search of medicines to save stroke and head trauma victims; was that wrong? Howabout Xenopus oocytes (frogs eggs, but you have to operate to get them out). Howabout mutant Drosophila (fruit flies) -- they're also animals with nervous systems. Howabout E.Coli?

laura

Obviously laboratory research is an exceedingly complex issue, and it's very difficult to draw a line. But it's undeniable that a lot of needless "research" has been performed on very sentient animals, and that factory-farmed animals are treated in a most horrifying manner.

doctorj

Well, research is a bit like advertising. At least half of it is needless, but no one can tell you beforehand which half.

laura

A bit like advertising, but without all the dead bodies.

doctorj

laura wrote: A bit like advertising, but without all the dead bodies.

Right. And advertising would lead to even more dead bodies than it currently does, if it weren't for animal research.

laura

Obviously you and I have different worldviews, so I'm not going to argue with you. You like potato, I like potahto, let's call the whole thing off!

doctorj

I like people and prefer them alive, I don't mind most animals, and I deplore animal cruelty. Not a big fan of blatant hypocrisy though; so many aspect of our current lifestyle and future welbeing are dependent on the exploitation of animals one way and another. To be conducted as humanely as possible, with the strict oversight of veterinarians and animal ethics committees and the kind of mandatory training in those ethics and handling rules I happen to have been through before being allowed into animal research, about which you may have been ill-informed by extremists. But to blanket animal testing as evil when it's protecting and insuring you every day and there are no satisfactory alternatives, well it's like being a stockbroker by day and claiming to be a socialist by night. One might as well admit upfront the mismatch between the rhetoric and the personal benefits enjoyed.

laura

I understand your position, I really do. But please don't brand me as ignorant or a blatant hypocrite or "ill-informed by extremists" because I don't share your view of the best way to learn about diseases. I'm a woman who has read and thought a great deal about this issue. (And, fwiw, I know what Drosophila means without the parenthetical gloss, thankyouverymuch.) I disagree with you as to the value of animal research, but as I already said, I am not going to argue with you. So don't ask me to "admit" that I'm a hypocrite or sadly misinformed.

doctorj

What's the better way? What alternative would you recommend instead of the rat cortices I used to narrow down the hunt for anti-stroke drugs? Or would you say I shouldn't have done the research?

BTW, my day job involves new technology capable of reducing (but not eliminating anytime soon) the need for animals. Everyone wants to use fewer animals.

Most people are hypocrites. For example: I'm deeply critical of aspects of the US tax code, but one of my reasons for moving to the US was to benefit from it. I reckon it's better to be honest about it.

Agreeing to disagree isn't an option for rational people, especially in matters of science. The choices are: "both partly right", "both wrong", "one right, one wrong", "not enough information yet", "unlikely there'll ever be enough information", and "the question is wrong".

laura

Animal tests are notoriously unreliable and misleading. Certainly there are alternatives ... in vitro tests, computer modeling, microchips, clinical trials ...

escap

Doctorj, you are right that most people are hypocrites, and to use your example, you'd be surprised (or maybe not) by how many people I personally know who are ideologically socialist and yet work in finance or consulting, or in many other ways benefit enormously from capitalism. The tension comes from the fact that most people pursue their own interests, but somewhere along the line we convinced ourselves that doing so is wrong.

doctorj

laura wrote: Animal tests are notoriously unreliable and misleading.

This is plainly, simply, and demonstrably wrong, in general. It depends entirely on what you're trying to measure and how broad conclusions you try to draw. Certainly the rats I killed gave reliable and reproducible readouts regarding what I needed to know, and there was no alternative technology at the time.

laura wrote: Certainly there are alternatives ... in vitro tests, computer modeling, microchips, clinical trials ...

All of which we're using as much as possible, depending on efficacy, applicability, and cost. More and more every year. In no way are these 'alternatives' in the sense of entirely displacing animal work; at a minimum we're decades away from that goal. But they do increase the efficiency of the process; shave a year off here, save some animals there. At the same time, regulatory requirements are forever becoming more stringent, and time and cost to market increasing, which works in the other direction.

You usually don't go into higher animals until you've exhausted in vitro methods, chips and modeling. On the other hand, no one will give you ethical approval for a clinical trial unless it's been in animals, for very good reasons. And no one. public or private, would give you the money to do so, even if you went to a country where you could get away with it. Direct-to-human trials have an extremely ignominious history.

What you are saying is the drug-discovery equivalent of "cars cause polution so everyone should teleport to work using limitless renewable energy".

laura

http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critcv.html

doctorj

laura wrote: http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critcv.html

Yikes! These guys, and their sister organisation PCRM are a dangerous front for misinformation and mayhem disguised in pseudoscientific format to lead the unwary astray. Masters of deception by selective quotation, and a menace to mainstream charities. Denounced and censured by the American Medical Association, among others,

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2786
http://www.the-aps.org/pa/resources/bionews/charities.htm
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23
http://www.research.ucsf.edu/arc/arcOversight.asp

One more time: I work every day on reducing the need for animal experimentation by new technologies (and stand a great deal to gain if succesful). It's in everyone's interests to cut down in the long run, as no one likes it, animal work is time consuming, relatively expensive, imperfect, fiddly and tightly regulated. It will take us decades to make serious inroads via new technology, although I can see some real incremental progress over the ca. 15 years I've been at it. No drugs and few medical devices in modern times have been or can yet be brought to market without some animal testing, practically or ethically. So the only way to genuinely opt out, for those who believe that no animals should die so that more people can live, is to refuse all Western medicine.

laura

Cool. I think we can move on now. (Btw, you didn't have to repeat yourself.) Have a good evening ... er, morning!