>> ^kronosposeidon:

So, anyone up for some hentai?


Only if the girls are wearing Planned Parenthood burkas, and the tentacles learn to respect the women as individuals before consensually consummating the relationship.

Harris hasn't done his homework. He's reading contemporary context into something that he's thousands of years removed from to make an argument.

Look at slavery. In first-century, when the New Testament was written, there was not a great difference between between slaves and the average free person. Slaves were not distinguishable from others by race, speech, or clothing. Slaves earned a wage equal to that of free laborers and could earn enough capital to buy themselves out. Most importantly, very few slaves were slaves for life. Most could reasonably hope to be manumitted within ten or fifteen years.

By contrast, New World slavery was much more systematically brutal. It was "chattel" slavery, in which the whole person was the property of the master. In the older bond-service form of slavery, only slaves' productivity (their time and skills) were owned by the master, and only temporarily. New World slavery, however, was race-based, default mode was for life, and the whole trade was resourced through kidnapping.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that women should have to wear burkas. I think it's despicable. However, he asks the question "is it good for human flourishing for women to wear burkas? Does it make more compassionate men, does it make more confident women, does it improve relationships between the sexes?" I think science would show that it doesn't do those things, but since when is that human flourishing? It can't be shown empirically and it certainly isn't self-evident to all people. Wouldn't the Muslim world say that human flourishing has nothing to with relationships between the sexes, but instead submitting to Allah? That would mean that the things like forcing women to wear the burka and sharia law DO improve human flourishing. It's all in how you define flourishing and progress, something I think Harris just completely didn't do.

Different cultures, political parties, and ideologies all have different ideas of what progress and flourishing are. If society is going in the wrong direction, then the most progressive person is actually the first one to do an about-face, which is why all groups believe themselves to be the most progressive or on the right side of history. The question that should have been tackled is What is human flourishing?

I have the same problem with this video that I had with his TED talk. He still hasn't explained how exactly science is making these value judgments. All science can do is give us, through experimentation, raw data about the world we live in. After that, we need to interpret the data. At the end of the day, then, it is still people that are deciding whether something is morally right or wrong, not "science." The people looking at that data have their own subjective values and that's going to influence how they interpret the data.

Science is about empirically testing out hypotheses. Yet, Harris asked what value does wearing a burka have for human society and doesn't even seem to realize he's already made two value judgments (that wearing a burka has no value and that we shouldn't engage in activities that don't contribute to society) without having undertaking any empirical research to support his claims. If his answer to that is "it's obvious" then he's already defeated his own standpoint because science isn't answering the question of whether burkas are morally right or wrong, his a priori knowledge is. Stewart was right to throw that in his face--that for some people in certain circumstances it indeed might have value and that in fact that value is completely subjective.

(Just to be clear, I don't in any way, shape, or form believe requiring women to wear burkas is good, but I also don't kid myself into thinking that belief is based on any sort of objective empirical evidence).

fucks sake.

in all honisty anny woman not in full burka hijab is a discrace and should be stoned to death emideatly.

If you get shot and killed while your expensive car is being jacked, you deserved it for driving an expensive car. If you don't like it, don't buy a fucking beamer. While we are on it, if you don't want to be mugged, stop wearing fucking clothes which are >walmart level. House broken into? Screw you, if you don't like it, live in a shittier place.

That's right, those grown adult men can't control themselves. Woman should wear burka's; anything less, they are just asking for it and men can't be held responsible for their actions.

nose burka!

Can you say Burka?

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
There are still some logical arguments for male circumcision, not the least of which is the health factor, not for men but for women. If bacteria builds up on the end of the penis it doesn't necessarily affect a man. But even a little can become a problem for a vagina when introduced during sex. Think of that what you will, I would still call it a logical argument however.
To date, I've never heard a non-religious/non-misogynist-based argument for female circumcision.

Simple hygiene makes this argument completely void.

This is correct - but not only that, are humans really so flippantly egotistical that they see the culmination of millions of years of evolution, think 'i can improve that rofl'? Besides which, i suggest that if you're sleeping with a man who hasn't cleaned his foreskin properly you've got a few more problems than bacteria buildup.
I can't watch this video, i can't bear to see anyone, but especially women getting abused.
However i might suggest you change the "A modicum of self control on the part of men?" in the video description. It comes off as being misandrous and ignorant. If the man can have self control, so can the woman. If it's rape, asking for someone to issue some self control over their urge to rape seems very strange.


The "modicum of self-control on the part of men" is referring to the breast ironing, which is to destroy women's sexual attractiveness so men do not feel like having sex with them (consensually or not!). In general, though, all women oppressing techniques, especially in relation to sexuality (burkas, stoning/beating for adultery, etc.), are related to the misogynous view which blames women for being the sole cause of that great evil called sex, for which men have no responsibility.

@rougy
Afghans arent benefiting from being able to acquire an education (especially the girls)? They arent benefiting from tens of millions of dollars sent to build clinics and local hospitals? They arent benefiting from thousands upon thousands of man hours put forth to build infrastructure like schools, wells for clean water, and the plumbing to keep it clean and sanitary? The afghan women arent benefiting from NOT being stoned for things like adultery or NOT wearing a burka? They arent benefiting from being able to form trade unions? Their military and police arent benefiting from the training, mentorship, and equipment we've given them to help them protect their country themselves?

we'd be in agreement in most respects on the deplorable conduct of this war, but pardon me if I cant create blanket statements and instead find the good from our mess and go from there

I know Muslim women engineers who feel very very sad that they can't wear religious Islamic clothing in this country because they feel it will make them the subject of discrimination. The one I know best is a power house who would be likely to outthink you 5 ways to Sunday if you tried to prevent her from doing anything she wanted to do. I think these would laugh at any attempt to see this as black and white.

As for me, I'm pretty much willing to use the "Fox News compliment rule" to say if Fox is outraged, Burka Barbie must be a better thing than I realized.

>> ^quantumushroom:
That's rich, being lectured about safe sex by a rep of the demographic responsible for 50% of all AIDS cases.
Abstinence-only is a failure? Seems relatively new by comparison How many decades has there been "liberal" sex education in government schools? Results: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD, half of all Black teens have herpes. FAIL.
Liberal "knowledge" always costs a little extra, as it's designed to undermine parental authority and encourage irresponsibility ("Don't worry, SOCIETY will pay for your bastard!") while downplaying real consequences.


You seem to be obsessed with the whole "every man for himself" philosophy of capitalism, but you have missed every single chapter on how this relies on informed citizens to actually work.

The entire concept of making a true free choice relies on our knowledge. Think about it: If you were asked if you with rather swim in water or swim in lava, and you had no idea what water or lava was, there is no point in making a choice in the first place, your "choice" would be no better or worse than after the flip of a coin.

If you really want people to fend for themselves, then why should we deliberately OMIT information in their sex education? Would you rather perhaps, that some official from the government should be sitting around the beds of 16 year-olds telling them not to have sex? Maybe we should have a more theocratic state, and go all-out on this whole "abstinence" idea, and just do like Saudi Arabia or Iran, and demand burka's and veils for all women, and threaten youth with 40 lashes for sex outside marriage?

Seriously, what is your real alternative? Do you like freedom, or do you like tax cuts and religion. You see, you cant have it both ways.

The statistics show quite clearly that when kids are given a proper sex education, abortions, STD's and teen pregnancies go DOWN, compared to this "abstinence only" bullshit.

>> ^Oblyvious:
yeah but its a cultural difference. its tragic that the parents are disowning her. but in the middle east, dont rape victims get stoned to death? i rather get disowned then get stoned.
all four boys should be punished. i think that the parents should be able to chose how they raise their child. i mean if i had a daughter and she was raped i would be upset that she got raped.
i would like to know why the girl went into the shed to begin with. couldnt they just give her the gum outside of the shed? why were the boys planning this attack? what did she do to the boys or what was her part in provoking the situation?
we all need more details before we can fully judge


O.o Are you serious?! All the facts?! You are actually considering that there is any merit in considering whether the girl (8, EIGHT years old) provoked the act?!! There is no excuse whatsoever for the actions of these 4 boys, the oldest being 14 (yeah, fourteen). The girl was lured in because as a child, she probably didn't imagine that these other children would mean to hurt her, especially in this horrific way. The younger boys were probably pressured into it by the older boys, but that's no excuse either. The teenagers knew what they was doing, knew it was wrong, and did it anyway. I thought all this went without saying, but apparently not!

The parents of the girl disowned her because in their culture, as in some middle eastern Muslim cultures, men cannot be held responsible for giving into to lustful desires for women who "MUST have been asking for it" (hence the mere existence of the burka). Toleration of this is just unacceptable, but of course, you can't force the parents to care. Hopefully the girl will be placed with a family that is not so heartless and loveless.

Rightly, the older boy is being charged as an adult in a sexual assault. The younger boys will likely be placed in a juvenile sex-offender institution for counseling, containment, and evaluation (probably for a year or two). Some boys recover in these places. Some repeat the offense later in life despite it.

I would think that the sarcasm would be obvious from the moment he said "Puritanical prudency of the burka."

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no way a burka-clad fundamentalist Muslim woman would ever become a western school teacher, because the same dogma that forces her to cover her entire body in cloth also requires her to have a male escort when outside of the house. Are you telling me that this teacher had a male family member escort her through college, credentialing, student teaching, job interviews, hiring and ultimately 9 months a year of work? I'm calling BS on this one.
This sounds like the kind of thing you find on fringe political sites, chain emails and talk radio.
Same thing with the cross story. I've done a lot of teaching and seen plenty of people who wear crosses. Do you know how hard it is to fire a teacher? Even if some rogue principal decided to fire someone for wearing a cross, the Unions would file a huge lawsuit - which they would win - and the principal would be let go immediately, while the teacher in question would get a large settlement. Either there is more to this story (i.e. proselytizing on the clock, wearing a T-shirt that said 'Jesus Saves', having sex with students, etc) or this story is bullshit.
Maybe things are completely different where you live, but I doubt it. You are trying to paint the picture of some massively oppressive cultural phenomena, but struggling to even come up with small isolated examples, let alone some kind of powerful systemic force. In my opinion, you are getting worked up over nothing.


I'm certainly worked up now, after you speaking to me like i'm some sort of wack-job when all i tried to do was throw a few "other end of the spectrum" examples in to show how a subject can be counter-productive to that which it is trying to aid.

Fortunately for me, you're completely wrong on this one, they were fully covered by many different news sources across great britain. It's almost common knowledge over here to anyone who follows the news and current events. However, your opinion that i'm trying to paint some oppressive cultural phenomenon is erroneous. I've simply said that "political correctness can often be counter productive to racial harmony", and cited a few examples.

So, i'm sorry dude, but they're 100% true. Despite your defensive stance over this, i think you simply don't realise we're agreeing that people simply need to be nice to each other the world over and racial differences and racial struggles will be a thing of the past. I think you've firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick and you're not WANTING to see or hear anything that might impact on the stubborn ideas you have about political correctness. I think you've got it in your head that i'm a racist, or at least ignorant, and you're dead set on proving it even if it means ignoring half of what i say. I think you're the ignorant one.

Now let me tell you something - my dad is not only a teacher but a head teacher, has been for 20 of 35 teaching years. Yes i know how tough it is to fire a teacher, i'm very very familiar with the ins and outs of the NUT as a result of such and ...... i won't go on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm
There is the story about the woman wearing the burkha, if you're interested (you're not) in finding out more information (you're not) and getting to the root of the story (you're not) and you'll see that originally she was allowed to continue teaching until students complained again that they couldn't understand her. So please research a little more and deliver your apology post haste (i'll wait for it while i wait for hell to freeze over)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418819/BA-cross-women-vows-compromise-92-cent-public-her.html
Regardless of the "do you know anything about teaching" (and my father sits here as i write this laughing at me being asked that question) debate, this woman was not a teacher and i never said she was. Go ahead and read it and research it if you like, but i warn you once again that it might encourage you to change your POV and i can see you get frosty when your POV is challenged.

Want another? A christian nurse asked an old lady (who was very ill) if she wanted her (the nurse) to pray for her recovery. The old lady said no, made a complaint, and the nurse has been suspended. That was in either today's or yesterday's newspaper.

Please, please, please do not speak in such an antagonistical manner to me when all i did was try to have a little chat and give you my opinion on political correctness. And at least have the common decency to listen to my opinion before slating it. And then, once you've done that, have a little search for subjects that you're about to summarily dismiss without consideration. And then, finally, get off your "i'm righteous i am" high horse and understand that there are people out there who aren't racist, aren't bigots, aren't xenophobes, but DO find political correctness insulting to their intelligence.

I am neither heavily for nor heavily against political correctness, i have stated my opinion and you have translated it to suit your over zealous righteous attitude. I am, however, heavily against having my polite friendly attitude replied to by haughty supercillious pomp, and that's why i'm more stern with this reply than with my previous.

I'm looking forward to see exactly which parts of this you ignored.

Maroons do come, in all shapes, sizes, creeds, and degree of melanin.....take off the burka when ya say that shit baby.....and fer crissakes, get a cat to torture instead of torturing yerself....

This bees fucking inane.....nice flam, aspertam.....