FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Atheists: The Distrusted Minority (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Atheists: The Distrusted Minority
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, I meant 'misguided' in the sense that you're only guessing that his grievance with religion comes from some honest past traumatic experience at the hands of religion, or someone religious.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I am only guessing. It seemed like a reasonable guess, though. There is enough hurt that I think most people have at least witnessed it, if not experienced it first hand. And, if not, it wouldn't really matter.

One of the best things our pastor does (and he does a lot of amazing things; I attend an amazing parish) is regularly apologize on behalf of the Church for any harm it has caused. This has been a gesture of remarkable grace.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Avatar300
Member
Member # 5108

 - posted      Profile for Avatar300   Email Avatar300         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
Avatar, as for personal freedom and whatnot, I really think the bigger problem is romanticizing partnerships. I don't think people realize how much WORK it is to be married; I'm sure I don't. So I think, at least in the US, a lot people get married thinking that everything will be rainbows and unicorns, and then all of a sudden, they're like, "?!?! I have to WORK at this?! Divorce time!"

So I think in our culture, the concept of an arranged marriage is foreign to a lot of people because it seems to me that one would DEFINLTEY have to work at making an arranged marriage work. And we don't think we have to work at relationships.

-pH

I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, marriage is hard work, but that has nothing to do with who selects your partner. I don't have any statistics, but I'd bet there are a lot of arranged marriages that end up "happily ever after" just as many self-selected marriages do not. Strictly arranged marriages negate freedom of choice whether the couple finds happiness or not, and are a form of force.

This is not to say that arranged marriages are necessarily wrong per se, although I myself find the idea to be an invasion of personal sovereignty.

Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Furthermore, KoM, do you have any statistics on the types of birth control available in your nationalistically-loved Norway, perchance?

I don't understand the relevance. No statistics, but just from having lived there, there's condoms, the Pill, day-after pills, and all the variants of mechanical thingies. I may have missed some. But again, what was your point?


quote:
quote:
In America, at least, second-generation atheists who inherited it from their parents are going to be rather unusual. This is not true of the mainstream Christian sects.
I'd be delighted to hear about your rigorous statistical analysis that led you to this conclusion.
Surely that's obvious just from the known facts that the number of atheists is growing, that older people are more likely to be religious, and that people are about 80% (IIRC from the last time we had this discussion) likely to belong to their parents' church?


quote:
As for IPU and FSM, well depending on the context it's frankly as condescending, rude, and eye-rolling inducing as any fundamentalist getting up a good rant.
Well, yes, that's more or less the point. It's not my fault if people insist on believing in beings as ridiculous as the FSM.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
My point in bringing up birth-control methods in Norway is to mostly point out that the availability of the day-after pill (for instance) might have a major impact on the abortion rate.

As for what is "obvious" and what isn't, well, correlation and causation and all that. I know it's obvious that's the conclusion you'd like to be proven true, due to your bigoted attachment to your own set of beliefs.

I know the point you generally use IPU and FSM to make, which is to express as frequently as possible your sneering disdain for anyone religious. Which is ironic due to your oft-stated aim of deconverting people. Recently you made a hypocrite of yourself on that score again by pointing out that 'deconversion' is probably more likely when someone the listener does not regard as an enemy hears a troubling or unconsidered viewpoint.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM,

I apologize for my apology if it was "misguided".

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's not my fault if people insist on believing in beings as ridiculous as the FSM.
Of course, no one you address that to actually does believe anything as ridiculous as the FSM.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, Dag, I understand that you believe this, I just disagree.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, KoM, I understand that you believe this, but you are wrong.

The underlying flaw in the IPU/FSM/Invisible Dragon/teapot analogies is that we know their authors made them up.

Therefore it would be ridiculous to believe in them, just as it's ridiculous to believe that Darth Vader ever existed. We know who created him, we know when, and the guy admits it.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
My point in bringing up birth-control methods in Norway is to mostly point out that the availability of the day-after pill (for instance) might have a major impact on the abortion rate.

Isn't it available in the US? But even so, I still don't see how this undermines my point, to wit, that the inhabitants of a secular state are better educated about contraception, and use it more often. And incidentally, the average age of first intercourse in Norway is 17 for girls; what is it in the US?

quote:
As for what is "obvious" and what isn't, well, correlation and causation and all that. I know it's obvious that's the conclusion you'd like to be proven true, due to your bigoted attachment to your own set of beliefs.
Really, I don't see where the correlation-causation fallacy comes into this. I haven't used a correlation as any sort of causation at all. I've used a correlation to show a correlation!

quote:
I know the point you generally use IPU and FSM to make, which is to express as frequently as possible your sneering disdain for anyone religious. Which is ironic due to your oft-stated aim of deconverting people. Recently you made a hypocrite of yourself on that score again by pointing out that 'deconversion' is probably more likely when someone the listener does not regard as an enemy hears a troubling or unconsidered viewpoint.
Well, there are three points to be made here : First,deconversion is against the forum rules; second, it is not likely to happen on a board where the majority are theists, so their delusions reinforce; and third, just because I know the most effective tactics doesn't mean I'm good at being patient enough to apply them. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And incidentally, the average age of first intercourse in Norway is 17 for girls; what is it in the US?

I tend to distrust by reflex any survey which relies upon teenagers to honestly relate their sexual experience.

quote:
Well, there are three points to be made here : First,deconversion is against the forum rules; second, it is not likely to happen on a board where the majority are theists, so their delusions reinforce; and third, just because I know the most effective tactics doesn't mean I'm good at being patient enough to apply them. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.
I'd be delighted to hear where 'deconversion'-more accurately, conversion-is against forum rules. Second, that's not the only reason it's difficult on this board. Third, it does in fact make you a hypocrite when you express a desire to earnestly help theists by 'de'converting them that you choose not to utilize what you believe are the best means for doing so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'd be delighted to hear where 'deconversion'-more accurately, conversion-is against forum rules.
It's in the User Agreement, depending on your interpretation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'd be delighted to hear where 'deconversion'-more accurately, conversion-is against forum rules.
I'm not sure that you can "convert" to atheism.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
There's not a lot left up to interpretation:

"You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs."

PJ, at I believe twinky's request, has already posted an intepretation that "disparage others for their own religious beliefs" includes agnostic and atheistic beliefs. It's likely that the phrase "religious beliefs" has the same meaning the two times it's used in that sentence.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
Dagonee's right. While I myself wouldn't include atheism and agnosticism under the "religious beliefs" umbrella (nor would I use "convert" in this context), I didn't write the user agreement, and I both requested and appreciated Pop's clarification.

Edit: "And nor" is redundant. Fixed.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheGrimace
Member
Member # 9178

 - posted      Profile for TheGrimace   Email TheGrimace         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM,
I have to say I'm dissapointed with the disdain you show towards those who do not share your viewpoint. One of the things I really like about this community is that by and large everyone is happy to come to discussions from their own personal PoV but with respect for others. At the same time it seems like most of the theists and atheists here have largely come to their respective conclusions based on a great deal of thought, and not flippantly. Therefor, your addressing us theists as "delusional" is rather offensive, and is just going to encourage others not to respect your opinions as you obviously dont respect theirs.

Also, a some good examples of how misleading these surveys can be (not saying they arent correct, but should be viewed carefully and not as concrete evidence)

in middle school and highschool we often had to take anonymous surveys on drug and alcohol use. A number of us who never smoked, drank etc would answer questions as follows (because the manner of questioning offended our intellects)
1) Do you smoke? No
2) How much do you smoke in a given day? 10 packs
--we were bored, and the fact that we had to give an answer to Q2 even though there weren't any valid options bothered us---

on the same tests we also often changed answers when asked the same question 3-4 times on a given section, or sometimes just outright lied because we were bored.

Additionally, in regard to the Norway survey quoted, just look at the abortion statistic.

# Abortions/# teens

The valid statistic would be:
# Abortions/# Teen pregnancies
which, looking at the rough numbers I dont think this statistic would be too much different between the US and Norway (keep in mind it's been a few days since I've looked at the numbers)

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Hrm. Well, I was flat-out wrong about that one. I haven't read the UA in quite awhile, but I should have before speaking so finally about it. My bad there.

Although in practice, that seems to be a rule about which there is very loose interpretation.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

The assumption that the other party really agrees with you but is restrained from expressing that agreement is smug, short-sighted, and offensive. That you somehow arrived at her only response being, "How dare you question my culture?" is another.

It reduces her to the ignorant, culturally inferior savage resorting to defensive emotion when faced with your superior, civilized calm statements of rationality. It does not treat this woman with much respect at all.

Let's back up Rackeesh. I didn't have this conversation on paper, I didn't have it theoretically, this was is a friend I was talking to. I knew her and I expressed my opinion to her, you don't know how I did that or what her reaction told me. You in fact don't know the reason I felt she agreed with me; which was not based on my own secret desire to be right and better than everybody else (because I'm not).

Once again, I guess I'm not allowed to have an opinion where "culture" is involved. Only we don't seem to have a problem questioning cultural attitudes all the time; its just these more oblique problems where people say "whoa whoa whoa! You can't be saying anything about that!"

The only thing your post tells me is that like Rivka, YOU don't mind condescending to others, and you DO believe that you are somehow better than me, or your opinion is somehow more relevant than mine just because it is "politically correct." Not that it isn't condescending to construct this whole reality (which is your imagining, not mine) where I believe I'm talking to cave people and primitives.

Its interesting that you jumped all over this imagery, and I never did. It tells me what kinds of ideas are swimming around in your head when you talk about other cultures. The girl I was talking about is actually 3/4 Irish, and one of her grandparents was from Jordan. Given all that, she would be the first person in two generations of her family to marry that way, and that seemed unfair to me.

Hmmm. Funny how we assume we know the situation SO much better than the person who was actually there....

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
Girls in the US, on average, have had intercourse by sixteen.

Now I'm off to Google to find where I read that.

And my point with the arranged marriage thing is that we seem to believe that because we can freely choose our partners, we somehow won't have to work as hard to make our marriages work. Which I believe I said before. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:


Because if she is an American and going to college, then she knows she does not have to do what her parents are instructing her to do. Surely you must be aware of that? So it's myopic as well.


On a seperate note, this is plainly too much for you to assume. Her parents (her father actually), control her life by terrorizing her with threatening to quit paying tuition, etc. She has an incredibly controlling father who called her every day and demanded control over her daily activities (he forbade her from using the underground in London), though she is 23 years old. Just because she doesn't physically HAVE to do what her parents say, doesn't mean they don't have control.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dr Strangelove
Member
Member # 8331

 - posted      Profile for Dr Strangelove   Email Dr Strangelove         Edit/Delete Post 
::Enters thread where I could get myself in so much trouble::

[Laugh]
quote:
Originally posted by TheGrimace:
KoM,
I have to say I'm dissapointed with the disdain you show towards those who do not share your viewpoint.

::Leaves thread where I could get myself in so much trouble::
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, I am finding myself currently unable to research the age thing because every site contains STD statistics, which are making me feel icky and setting off my need for obsessive-compulsive rituals.

I'm going to go wash my hands a few times. [Eek!]

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
pH- Are you sure this is the "average" age for sex? This would mean that a great number have sex at 13-14-15, since so many wait till after age 16. It just seems young to me, although I suppose it could be accurate.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm pretty sure it's accurate, Orinoco.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blacwolve
Member
Member # 2972

 - posted      Profile for blacwolve   Email blacwolve         Edit/Delete Post 
I can't find an actual average age, but according to my textbook (and they got the numbers from Centers for Disease Control) in 2001 34.4% of high school freshman reported having had sex, 40.8% of sophomores, 51.9% of juniors, and 60.5% of seniors. So yea, I'd say sixteen sounds about right. I'll keep looking and see if I can find something more definate.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Well, KoM, I understand that you believe this, but you are wrong.

The underlying flaw in the IPU/FSM/Invisible Dragon/teapot analogies is that we know their authors made them up.

Therefore it would be ridiculous to believe in them, just as it's ridiculous to believe that Darth Vader ever existed. We know who created him, we know when, and the guy admits it.

I was speaking of a more 'intrinsic' sort of ridiculousness, that is, the contradiction of daily experience. You do not experience the daily touch of the Noodly Appendage, so it is ridiculous to believe in it. You likewise do not experience the daily resurrection of crucified people, so it is ridiculous to believe that, also.

But if it comes to that, you can by all means substitute 'the Norse pantheon' for the IPU; the argument remains just as forceful, and you absolutely do not know that Odin and the rest were made up by their authors. Unless, of course, you're going to accept that I know that your god was made up by its authors.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
About being hypocritical, consider that I also know perfectly well when I should get up in the morning to make the best use of my day. Am I a hypocrite, then, when in actual fact I rise about an hour later? No, I'm just weak-willed. It is the same with religion : I know what the most effective tactic is, I just don't have the self-discipline to apply it in the face of my extreme exasperation. I do not think this fits with hypocrisy.

About the user agreement, it does seem to me that it is not being enforced with all the rigour one would usually expect.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
pH- Are you sure this is the "average" age for sex? This would mean that a great number have sex at 13-14-15, since so many wait till after age 16. It just seems young to me, although I suppose it could be accurate.

I'm fairly certain. And if you think teens having sex at 13-15 is extremely rare, you are unfortunately mistaken. [Frown]

But as I said, I am presently unable to Google the statistics because of my contamination problem; if someone else can find it, that would be cool. It probably wasn't even something from the Web, considering the apparent content of most of the sites that may have such information.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
pH- Are you sure this is the "average" age for sex? This would mean that a great number have sex at 13-14-15, since so many wait till after age 16. It just seems young to me, although I suppose it could be accurate.

I'm fairly certain. And if you think teens having sex at 13-15 is extremely rare, you are unfortunately mistaken. [Frown]
-pH

Just a function of my experience- Catholuc school [Wink] The stats are probably a somewhat different for that group. (although who knows)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
Around here, the students who went to Catholic school are the worst of 'em all. [Razz]

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
Around here, the students who went to Catholic school are the worst of 'em all. [Razz]

-pH

I'd buy that. Although I have no frame of reference.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
quidscribis
Member
Member # 5124

 - posted      Profile for quidscribis   Email quidscribis         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:Her parents (her father actually), control her life by terrorizing her with threatening to quit paying tuition, etc. She has an incredibly controlling father who called her every day and demanded control over her daily activities (he forbade her from using the underground in London), though she is 23 years old. Just because she doesn't physically HAVE to do what her parents say, doesn't mean they don't have control.
And if she doesn't like this, she has a choice. She can stop accepting his money for tuition and put herself through school. She can either get a job(s) or scholarships or grants or loans. She has a choice to not accept his financial help. She can live her life in such a way that she no longer answers to her father regarding such things as riding the underground and other things.

That she chooses to accept his financial help and she chooses to live by his rules is her choice.

Unless he's holding a gun to her head or otherwise threatening her life, she has a choice.

Same as her accepting arranged marriage.

Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by quidscribis:

Same as her accepting arranged marriage.

Well you've just turned around and made my original argument all over again. I think you make the mistake of believing once again that just because someone doesn't physically HAVE to do something, doesn't mean they can't be manipulated, pushed, threatened or terrorized into doing it. If a person grows up in a family like that, it only makes it easier for the family to maintain control later on. I think its entirely possible that this person simply can't defy her father because its something he has always made impossible for her. Imagine the consequences of denying the control of such a strong influence: it would mean the seperation from your family, friends, loved ones, your childhood home, your parents.

Even your rationalization, that is is "possible" to not accept arranged marriage makes it quite obvious that you see the tyranny involved. If not accepting an arranged marriage means a sacrifice of your family and your relationship with your parents, then it must really be a great thing. [Roll Eyes]

I think that's the heart of the issue for me. The girl defended her culture to me from one side of her mouth, and told me horror stories about her controlling father from the other side. The inane American unspoken rule "don't judge," makes it uncomfortable for people to hear me say: I think this is just wrong, no matter the culture, it can't be a good thing. But that is what I think, I doubt I could feel differently about no matter the situation. And YES, though there are a million stories about this or that arranged marriage working out oh so well, and though YES there are obvious benefits I don't deny, there is one fatal flaw. Arranged marriage is a form of tyranny, whether it forces someone into a marriage, or out of their family, this is an obvious subjugation of free people.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Orincoro,

quote:
Let's back up Rackeesh. I didn't have this conversation on paper, I didn't have it theoretically, this was is a friend I was talking to. I knew her and I expressed my opinion to her, you don't know how I did that or what her reaction told me.
I only know what you post, Orincoro. Be more detailed next time-and why DID you think that, then?

quote:
The only thing your post tells me is that like Rivka, YOU don't mind condescending to others, and you DO believe that you are somehow better than me, or your opinion is somehow more relevant than mine just because it is "politically correct." Not that it isn't condescending to construct this whole reality (which is your imagining, not mine) where I believe I'm talking to cave people and primitives.
Maybe you can wind up your helpless victim theme sometime soon, and actually respond to some of what I've said? I and others have raised some pretty solid objections, and all you've done is whine that we're being mean. I don't believe I'm better than you, I just believe I'm right and you're wrong. You've certainly not given me a reason to question that conclusion, either. I'm asking you to.

And by the way, the idea that defense of arranged marriage is somehow more PC than the stance you're making is pretty absurd.

quote:
Its interesting that you jumped all over this imagery, and I never did. It tells me what kinds of ideas are swimming around in your head when you talk about other cultures. The girl I was talking about is actually 3/4 Irish, and one of her grandparents was from Jordan. Given all that, she would be the first person in two generations of her family to marry that way, and that seemed unfair to me.
Despite her being 3/4 Irish, every single point of mine was valid and almost all of them remain unaddressed by you. Though she might be 3/4 Irish, from what you are saying the culture she is living in is Muslim, and from your own words you do think that one is backward, unfair, and primitive. But when confronted with that, you start weaseling and backpedaling and whining.

quote:
On a seperate note, this is plainly too much for you to assume. Her parents (her father actually), control her life by terrorizing her with threatening to quit paying tuition, etc. She has an incredibly controlling father who called her every day and demanded control over her daily activities (he forbade her from using the underground in London), though she is 23 years old. Just because she doesn't physically HAVE to do what her parents say, doesn't mean they don't have control.
No, it's not too much for me to assume in a short-of-violence situation. She is being threatened, but not terrorized. It says a lot about you, actually, that you regard threatening to stop paying tuition as 'terrorizing'.

Other than that, quid is entirely correct.

If you'd like to get down to the business of why exactly you're right instead of whining, I'll be around.

J4

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Hrm. You posted while I was typing, so please bear that in mind.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Orincoro,

quote:
I think you make the mistake of believing once again that just because someone doesn't physically HAVE to do something, doesn't mean they can't be manipulated, pushed, threatened or terrorized into doing it.
No one has said she cannot be manipulated. All we have said is that she is now an adult, and you are treating her like a child. To be fair, it sounds as though this is reasonable on your part, if a 23 year old woman allows her parents to dictate her life to this degree.

quote:
I think its entirely possible that this person simply can't defy her father because its something he has always made impossible for her. Imagine the consequences of denying the control of such a strong influence: it would mean the seperation from your family, friends, loved ones, your childhood home, your parents.
'Hard' does not equal 'impossible', nor does painful. She can defy her father. People do it all the time.

quote:
I think that's the heart of the issue for me. The girl defended her culture to me from one side of her mouth, and told me horror stories about her controlling father from the other side. The inane American unspoken rule "don't judge," makes it uncomfortable for people to hear me say: I think this is just wrong, no matter the culture, it can't be a good thing.
Now you're finally going into detail. Actually I can agree with you, a bit, that this does sound tyrannical to some extent. Oh, and it's not some stupid American rule that makes people uncomfortable to hear what you have to say about this. Nice way of reducing your opposition's viewpoints.

How condescending!

quote:
Arranged marriage is a form of tyranny, whether it forces someone into a marriage, or out of their family, this is an obvious subjugation of free people.
Wrong. Say instead, "Arranged marriage can be a form of tyranny, if it forces someone into a marriage, or refusal thrust them out of their family, then it is an obvious subjugation of free people."

Arranged marriage is not always these things. Your insistence that it is is mostly what's got myself and others disagreeing with you, or at least a big part.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
So if the government started telling everybody that who they had to marry, it would only be a form of tyranny when the couples that were placed together didn't like eachother?

Tyranny is tyranny, and its still tyranny when everything works out for the best. The fact that the system in place, the culture which encourages fathers to predicate who and when their daughters will marry, may sometimes work, doesn't mean it isn't inherently flawed.

We of course have to place some faith in a parent's ability to choose some things for their children, but I think I would like to see the line drawn somewhere WAY before a daughter gets to marriage. If we want to acknowledge the individuality of a person (maybe a big if in some cultures), then we must also define somehow when that person is an adult, and when they are a child.

Americans don't exactly do this, but we do have strict limitations on some things. For instance the child is "adult" at 18, or independent earlier in some cases.

The thing I am talking about is not the legal question: can this person compel me physically, as an American to marry anyone. Of course not. But I don't think you really appreciate the power which manipulative family leaders can weild over their children, it can be very extreme, it can feel like real control; and if it feels real, then in a sense it is as good as real. Your viewpoint is the well adjusted and sane one, but not everyone is well adjusted and sane, and I think the control that arranged marriage provides to a parent only encourages manipulation and control.

What IS arranged marriage if it doesn't force people together, who otherwise mightn't have married eachother? If it didn't do this, then there would be no need to arrange marriages because people would naturally always marry the right person. But no, it establishes as a premise that the parent has control over that choice, the most important one in the life of their child. The power is thus places in the hands of the parent to control the life of the child forever. I just can't see that ever being a good thing, even if it works out.

I think it is an Americanism I was talking about. Growing up I've often noticed that we as Americans have a strong tendency to marginalize other cultures by refusing to acknowledge that we are uncomfortable with their traditions. "Don't Judge" says on one hand that you don't have a right to an opinion because your not part of a group (that's wrong IMO), and that another culture is so different from yours, that you just can't understand it. The subtext being that others are primitive and shouldn't be disturbed from their "natural" way of doing things. In the broader picture we do a little of this when we need to (such as with this question), and we do a little of the exact opposite, like in the case of the war in Iraq.

My frustration with that argument stems from there being no good answer. Either you don't interfere with someone, ostensibly because they are SO different from you and too primitive to learn from you; or you do interfere and now you are the opressor. But the Americanism remains, there is no possible way that we could be equals, with some good ideas and some bad ideas on both sides. This is an exaggeration and not really a reaction to your point, but rather a function of the mass consciousness, which has always bothered me. There are always those who don't want to contact the locals, and those who want the locals to be just like the people back home. Oh well. Isn't it possible to have some give and take?

If this sounds like "weaseling" to you then fine. Although I haven't and won't apoligize for feeling the way I do. So if you think I'm wrong, that's what debate is all about, but as I said before don't try and bully me into feeling bad about who I am. I don't.

[ March 31, 2006, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lissande
Member
Member # 350

 - posted      Profile for Lissande   Email Lissande         Edit/Delete Post 
quidscribis is right - the girl DOES have a choice. It might be the hardest choice in her life, and might entail sacrifice on her part, such as cutting herself off from her father/family, but it is still a choice. Many people have made that choice, I believe some on this very board. This particular girl may not have the will to make the choice, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have it [the choice. ahem.].

Also, I have to wonder if you read quid's description of arranged marriage in Fahim's family, Orincoro. You keep talking about arranged marriage in terms of compulsion and tyranny (which it can be sometimes), but you don't seem (that I've noticed) to acknowledge the reality that modern arranged marriages are often with full consent and veto-right on all sides. Fahim's brother met with dozens of women. Either of them could have said no. Where is the compulsion in that?

I just feel like you're ignoring the existence of non-patriarchal-tyranny arrangements, and I think it's a mistake.

Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
About the user agreement, it does seem to me that it is not being enforced with all the rigour one would usually expect.

Lack of enforcement is not a licence to violate it. You may wish to keep that in mind. [Smile]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You likewise do not experience the daily resurrection of crucified people, so it is ridiculous to believe that, also.
If I believed in the daily resurrection of crucified people, your statement might make a modicum of sense as a refutation of my beliefs. As it stands, all you've done is given us a good example of "intrinsic ridiculousness."

quote:
But if it comes to that, you can by all means substitute 'the Norse pantheon' for the IPU; the argument remains just as forceful, and you absolutely do not know that Odin and the rest were made up by their authors. Unless, of course, you're going to accept that I know that your god was made up by its authors.
Ah, but we've had this discussion before, and I do not reject the Norse pantheon as displaying "intrinsic" ridiculousness. Of course, I think the descriptions of it we have are wrong in very important ways if, in fact, it does exist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
quidscribis
Member
Member # 5124

 - posted      Profile for quidscribis   Email quidscribis         Edit/Delete Post 
*sigh*
quote:
But I don't think you really appreciate the power which manipulative family leaders can weild over their children, it can be very extreme, it can feel like real control; and if it feels real, then in a sense it is as good as real.
That's an... interesting comment.

My parents were manipulative, controlling, abusive, and tyrranical in the extreme. They treated me like a slave my entire life. If I were still in contact with them, I would still - in their eyes and actions - be a slave for them to manipulate and control.

The reason they no longer have any power over me is because I chose to not allow them to.

Do you still want to make blanket statements that we can't possibly understand manipulation and control?

quote:
quidscribis is right - the girl DOES have a choice. It might be the hardest choice in her life, and might entail sacrifice on her part, such as cutting herself off from her father/family, but it is still a choice. Many people have made that choice, I believe some on this very board.
I am one of those people.


As a bit more information, Fahim's brother rejected at least fifty women. The search started before I married Fahim in August 2003. Fahim even went with the family to meet the potential mate and her family so he could have his input.

It's firmly believed here that when two people marry, they marry the entire family, and it's important for everyone that everyone in the family gets along well.

As a further note, it would seem that I have to bring this to your attention. Fahim's marriage to me was not arranged. Fahim's sister's marriage to her husband was not arranged.

Gee. Tyranny to one child out of three, then?

Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
You write as if I know anything about you and Fahim, I don't sorry, your world doesn't really involve me. The only thing I know about you comes from what you write here, and what I happen to read. So don't assume I have it out for you, I can only judge based on what you say. And what I do know is that you take my entire last post and throw every point I had out the window and repeat your same points all over again, even after I acknowledged them.

I said several times 'yes she CAN PHYSICALLY not get married." But my point was that her family had raised her with the assumption that this was a right THEY had, so she won't. You turn around and say, but she really CAN! she CAN! Yes. She can, but she won't, and the price of defying her family makes it clear to me that something isn't working.

That's all I said, and you completely ignored the fact that I agreed with you on everything you just said, again.

Is it a different story when there is equinimity and vetoe rights and generally reasonable people involved... Of course! But was that the situation I was talking about as tyranny.... NO. And the fact that you had manipulative and abusive parents doesn't give you a licence to dismiss that as part of my argument, you situation can't possible be exactly the same, so don't pretend as if it is.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
Dagonee's right. While I myself wouldn't include atheism and agnosticism under the "religious beliefs" umbrella (nor would I use "convert" in this context), I didn't write the user agreement, and I both requested and appreciated Pop's clarification.

Edit: "And nor" is redundant. Fixed.

BTW, the clarification from Papa Janitor explicitly stated that both conversion to and disparagement of atheism and agnosticism were covered under that TOS section.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2