women get stoned to death for loving a sunni boy.

[Adamb0mb]

I saw 7 videos of the act, and they are highly violent and disturbing.

I can understand watching it once to verify the story. But why would you watch it again (and again and again...), did you feel you missed something the first time?

 

[Luckymoose]

Another reason the whole area needs to be nuked.
Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[HannibalBarka]

The religion of peace.
Its proponents claim it gives rights to women.
That's absolutely correct.
Where did they get four witnesses, I wonder?
Oh, I forgot, the ulema have their own tradition.
But the religion is blamless. Of course. It has to be. It not being would contradict our deeply-held, revered, and sacred pseudo-liberal dogma, wouldn't it? So we say again,
The religion of peace.
Which gave women rights.
They never had before.
Right.
If we say it enough times, it'll become true.
Right.

Actually Islam outlawed a lot of old preislamic-traditions like killing newborn baby-girls and sons inheriting their Father's wifes. So it actually truly gave women rights they hadn't back than. Was that enough in 7th century? Maybe.
Is that enough today? Definitly not.

By tha way, killing new born baby-girls was still very common in India few decades ago. It has been replaced by selective abortion recently, a terrible misuse of 21st century medical technology. It is unfortunate India did not had a prophet like Mohammad to outlaw such an unhumane practice.

 

[aneeshm]

Actually Islam outlawed a lot of old preislamic-traditions like killing newborn baby-girls and sons inheriting their Father's wifes.

Quite true.

Point is, many places didn't have those traditions in the first place. So outlawing them was rather..... redundant, shall we say, with respect to such places?

So it actually truly gave women rights they hadn't back than. Was that enough in 7th century? Maybe.

Then again, when you study the Indian law written during or before that period, you realise that Indian women didn't need those "rights", because they already had them.

Is that enough today? Definitly not.

Something on which we agree, at last.

By tha way, killing new born baby-girls was still very common in India few decades ago.

Yes, yes, true. So sad, really.

What's a father to do? A daughter is such a responsibility. Who knows then the local Sultan, or Mughal official may take a fancy to her? We can't have dishonour to the family, can we? And what to do after she has been thrown out after being used by that person? Do we take care of her then? We are poor people. We can barely afford to take care of a child, how shall we care for a dishonoured woman?

It has been replaced by selective abortion recently, a terrible misuse of 21st century medical technology. It is unfortunate India did not had a prophet like Mohammad to outlaw such an unhumane practice.

Yep. Too bad, very sad. The sad part being that that "Prophet" lived far too early, na? Like, sometime in the year 350 BC, or something, where I vaguely recall he did say something about such things not being legal, or something like that. Too early to have much of an impact on modern India. Such a tragedy. He should have been born sometime later, haan?

 

[aneeshm]

More seriously:

I don't deny that Mohammed may have been a great reformer of Arabian tribal desert society. My point is that Islam was, in fact, destructive in its influence on other cultures NOT so situated (id est, non-tribal, non-desert, urban and plentiful), and it continues to be so, given that culture has progressed since then.

 

[HannibalBarka]

More seriously:
I don't deny that Mohammed may have been a great reformer of Arabian tribal desert society.

That is maybe a fact.

My point is that Islam was, in fact, destructive in its influence on other cultures NOT so situated (id est, non-tribal, non-desert, urban and plentiful), and it continues to be so, given that culture has progressed since then.

That is your opinion and definetly not a FACT. Most historian would disagree with you

 

[LucyDuke]

Would you rather we paid no attention at all?

I'm here talking about it, too, aren't I? I said that was my emotional response. Emotional response can include pretend this isn't happening, that doesn't make it the best action to take.

It tells me they have no will power. They just cave into their instincts even when they should know better.

You're also forgetting that the person I replied to said he watched SEVEN different videos. That's beyond a 1-time instant-gratification-twitch-instinct.

Regardless, I choose to be human.

I agree that there's something wrong when somebody dwells on that kind of thing. Hell, I think most people who watch Law & Order: SVU have some demons they ought to deal with. I just don't agree that these people "are only a cut below" the perpetrators. They're not that low.

I can't watch videos like we're talking about. I prefer to eat lunch. And maintain some respect for humanity (whether or not it deserves it). So I'm not one of "them", whether they're just a little naughty or complete scum. For the record and all that.