Muslim Father's Honor Killing

[Sinsear]

assimilated!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

In related news, I found this gem from a Pew poll:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...of-women-can-be-at-least-sometimes-justified/

40% of Pakistanis think it is "sometimes" or "often" OK to murder a female family member for committing adultery. But hey, if it's a male family member, it's only 33%. I have to give them credit, they are (almost) egalitarian in their homicidal world view.

I am not surprised, and yet some people don't seem to get it. Case in point:

Some Muslims believe in honor killings and some American husbands believe in wiping out their whole family if his wife decides to leave him. Murder is murder, no matter what lens you filter it through.

Have any polls been conducted to see if 40% of American husbands think it is "sometimes" or "often" OK to murder their wives and family if they leave them? Of course murder is murder, but equating a few whacko husbands to potentially sizable portions of certain populations is absurd.

 

[Blue_Max]

Have any polls been conducted to see if 40% of American husbands think it is "sometimes" or "often" OK to murder their wives and family if they leave them? Of course murder is murder, but equating a few whacko husbands to potentially sizable portions of certain populations is absurd.

Especially since the statistics show moms kill their children at about twice the rate fathers do. But we're supposed to ignore that and concentrate on "men are scum."

Happily, the numbers of kids murdered by EITHER parent is very, very low. Hardly indicative of western society as a whole, so neither should be held up as a rallying banner to hate the "other guys".


...and then there's the murder rates of western civ vs. middle-eastern 'civilization'... *shudder* But we're not allowed to discuss that or we'll be called "insensitive racists".

 

[werepossum]

He didn't claim that! Why do you insist on being so dishonest with peoples arguements?

He was merely pointing out that honor killings are not unique to the Muslim religion. He made no claim about how strong that association is.

Actually he specifically quoted, in bold, the very PC BS that honor killings are "not associated with particular religions". To wit:

"The twin notions of "honour" and of "shame" and their use as justifications for violence and homicide can be found in many cultures. Honour killings have historical roots in many regions of the world including Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and South Asia. In some Arab and South Asian states, where modern-day incidences of honour killings are more predominant, the practice of honour killings likely originates from ancient Arab culture, with its roots from Pakistan.

However, honour killings are not associated with particular religions or religious practice: they have been recorded across Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities. Often, honour killings are not a religiously motivated crime, but are based on personal agendas, personal ego and personal mindset. In some cases, there are psychological connotations, as studies have shown that some perpetrators have undiagnosed mental illness and psychopathic traits or disorders."

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/hk-ch/p5.html

Just for reference, claiming that honor killings are not associated with Islam is saying there is NO association.

Just for reference, claiming no association IS making an assertion about the strength of the association. Ask the person who puts the helmet on you when you go walkies.

 

[woolfe9998]

Actually he specifically quoted, in bold, the very PC BS that honor killings are "not associated with particular religions". To wit:


Just for reference, claiming that honor killings are not associated with Islam is saying there is NO association.

Just for reference, claiming no association IS making an assertion about the strength of the association. Ask the person who puts the helmet on you when you go walkies.

As the person who put up the statistic refuting his point, I would only partially agree here. I understand your literal reading, but when he said not associated I believe in context he meant not exclusively associated. The problem I still have with what he said is that you don't just make that point without quantification. Otherwise it means nothing. Saying "not every single honor killing in the world is perpetrated by a Muslim" is a "duh" statement because not all of anything is ever perpetrated exclusively by people of one group. I'd be shocked if literally no non-Muslim in the history of the world ever committed an honor killing so I didn't really need to the told that.

I didn't like the fact that he was purposefully leaving it vague which is why I put up the number. Anyway, I agree in essence he was playing word games to distort the issue, and his failure to reply to the rather inconvenient information I exposed further underscores the point.

You're not the only one who is getting tired of many liberals reflexively defending people who represent everything they purportedly despise. This liberal has just about had it up to here with it. I am critical of Islam precisely because of my progressive values. To me it comes naturally just like criticizing the religious right in America does. For reasons of their own, I guess not all liberals see it that way.

 

[thraashman]

I think you are lying. Mike never said that.

To my knowledge he didn't speak about this specific case, but I'm not lying. He very much supports people denying or attacking people's rights in the name of their religious freedom.

 

[werepossum]

As the person who put up the statistic refuting his point, I would only partially agree here. I understand your literal reading, but when he said not associated I believe in context he meant not exclusively associated. The problem I still have with what he said is that you don't just make that point without quantification. Otherwise it means nothing. Saying "not every single honor killing in the world is perpetrated by a Muslim" is a "duh" statement because not all of anything is ever perpetrated exclusively by people of one group. I'd be shocked if literally no non-Muslim in the history of the world ever committed an honor killing so I didn't really need to the told that.

I didn't like the fact that he was purposefully leaving it vague which is why I put up the number. Anyway, I agree in essence he was playing word games to distort the issue, and his failure to reply to the rather inconvenient information I exposed further underscores the point.

You're not the only one who is getting tired of many liberals reflexively defending people who represent everything they purportedly despise. This liberal has just about had it up to here with it. I am critical of Islam precisely because of my progressive values. To me it comes naturally just like criticizing the religious right in America does. For reasons of their own, I guess not all liberals see it that way.

Dude, it's because I love you that I say this: PLEASE don't say "your progressive values." Liberal values are great things, the foundation of secular Western civilization: free speech, self-ownership, individual liberty, the empowerment of the individual over the state. Progressive values are the antithesis of that, the submergence of the individual into designated groups, empowerment of the government above all, concentration of power, banning of speech other than rigidly defined acceptable speech. You criticize Islam because the religion is antithetical to your liberal principles; progressives defend Islam because its adherents are fellow haters of Christianity. Doesn't matter to them what Islam mandates or who it hurts, it's just following the official herd hierarchy of hatred.