Under-Age Marriage Pic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]orion wrote:
I have not read the second book, but I will.

The synopsis at Amazon makes me believe that it argues along the same lines as Keegan, namely that the Greeks were the first that developed the will to get as close to the enemy as necessary to kill him and to develop a formation that made it possible and that all of Europes forces inherited that spirit.

My point would be,

a) why did this attitude develop and , more importantly, was cultivated in Europe?

b) did Europes geography, after having given us an advantage of a few thousand years over the Americas and Australia also further help us by having several major powers constantly fighting each other rather than a unified empire like the Chinese.

The Chinese had one peninsula => Koreans.

We have Spain, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, the British isles and several massive mountains that divide the continent.

Not only strategy is geography, cultural development also is.

Had we not fought constantly for hundreds of years were hundreds of players were constantly trying to get the upper hand our firearms (or even crossbows) might have been mothballed like in Japan.

[/quote]

Hanson refers to what you’re talking to as “shock battle”. It encompasses multiple ideas, only one of which is getting in your enemy’s face. Hanson only goes so far as to claim that culture is an important aspect in warfare. I’m the guy putting that into the JS Mill “marketplace of ideas” and claiming that means that the superior culture is often the more moral one.

Regardless, I won’t regurgitate the entire book for you, but I will give you the chapter titles. Each corresponds with a particular trait unique to many western cultures. Other cultures tend to have SOME of these traits (he covers this well in the Battle of Midway) but the culture that has the most tends to win in battle.

2-Freedom–or “To Live as You Please” (about the Battle of Salamis)

3-Decisive Battle (about Gaugamela)

4-Citizen Soldiers (about Cannae)

5-Landed Infantry (about Poitiers)

6-Technology and the Wages of Reason (about Tenochtitlan)

7-The Market–or Capitalism Kills (about Lepanto)

8-Discipline–or Warriors Are Not Always Soldiers (about Rorke’s Drift)

9-Individualism (about Midway)

10-Dissent and Self-Critique (about the Tet Offensive)

I will level with you. I felt bad reading the book. I felt bad because you do end up with a feeling of cultural superiority. I do believe in cultural relativism, just not moral relativism. He wasn’t shooting for that, but that is the end result. No matter how you look at it though, he makes a very compelling, though quite controversial case. But if you look at who the bulk of the people bashing his work are, you can readily understand why. Even if you don’t like his thesis, his synapsis of each battle is very entertaining and educational. I was especially blown away by Rorke’s Drift.

mike

82

Europeans were educated by Moors.

Same people you are arguing live so savagely. Give it up already.

83

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
orion wrote:
I have not read the second book, but I will.

The synopsis at Amazon makes me believe that it argues along the same lines as Keegan, namely that the Greeks were the first that developed the will to get as close to the enemy as necessary to kill him and to develop a formation that made it possible and that all of Europes forces inherited that spirit.

My point would be,

a) why did this attitude develop and , more importantly, was cultivated in Europe?

b) did Europes geography, after having given us an advantage of a few thousand years over the Americas and Australia also further help us by having several major powers constantly fighting each other rather than a unified empire like the Chinese.

The Chinese had one peninsula => Koreans.

We have Spain, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, the British isles and several massive mountains that divide the continent.

Not only strategy is geography, cultural development also is.

Had we not fought constantly for hundreds of years were hundreds of players were constantly trying to get the upper hand our firearms (or even crossbows) might have been mothballed like in Japan.

Hanson refers to what you’re talking to as “shock battle”. It encompasses multiple ideas, only one of which is getting in your enemy’s face. Hanson only goes so far as to claim that culture is an important aspect in warfare. I’m the guy putting that into the JS Mill “marketplace of ideas” and claiming that means that the superior culture is often the more moral one.

Regardless, I won’t regurgitate the entire book for you, but I will give you the chapter titles. Each corresponds with a particular trait unique to many western cultures. Other cultures tend to have SOME of these traits (he covers this well in the Battle of Midway) but the culture that has the most tends to win in battle.

2-Freedom–or “To Live as You Please” (about the Battle of Salamis)

3-Decisive Battle (about Gaugamela)

4-Citizen Soldiers (about Cannae)

5-Landed Infantry (about Poitiers)

6-Technology and the Wages of Reason (about Tenochtitlan)

7-The Market–or Capitalism Kills (about Lepanto)

8-Discipline–or Warriors Are Not Always Soldiers (about Rorke’s Drift)

9-Individualism (about Midway)

10-Dissent and Self-Critique (about the Tet Offensive)

I will level with you. I felt bad reading the book. I felt bad because you do end up with a feeling of cultural superiority. I do believe in cultural relativism, just not moral relativism. He wasn’t shooting for that, but that is the end result. No matter how you look at it though, he makes a very compelling, though quite controversial case. But if you look at who the bulk of the people bashing his work are, you can readily understand why. Even if you don’t like his thesis, his synapsis of each battle is very entertaining and educational. I was especially blown away by Rorke’s Drift.

mike[/quote]

Of course culture plays a role in warfare (Keegan thinks that the Greek citizen/farmers sought the decisive battle because they had to work their land).

I do not quite get where you draw the conclusion that a culture that is better at waging wars is morally superior to a culture that isn`t.

Where does more efficient at killing = morally superior come from?

84

[quote]meangenes wrote:
Europeans were educated by Moors.

Same people you are arguing live so savagely. Give it up already.[/quote]

Afghans are not Moors.

85

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Europeans were educated by Moors.

Same people you are arguing live so savagely. Give it up already.

Afghans are not Moors.[/quote]

Lixy is, isn’t he? And he takes educating seriously.

86

[quote]dk44 wrote:
"The image hardly fits our idea of the happy couple�??s wedding picture - but this haunting photograph taken in Afghanistan graphically captures life for millions of girls given in marriage while under age. It shows Mohammed, 40, with his new 11-year-old wife, Ghulam. Taken by US photographer Stephanie Sinclair, it was named Unicef Photo of the Year yesterday.
[/quote]

I don’t know who wrote the following, but it seems bs’d. Ghulam is a male name in Afghanistan.

This practice has already been outlawed in Afghanistan. The legal age to marry in Afghanistan is now 16 (Jamie Lynn Spears, anyone?). And it is against Islamic practices for a girl to be married out of her own will. Obviously only a small population, especially in the southern tribal areas are doing this (along with people in the so-called ‘educated’ North). They haven’t really been exposed to any credible Islamic teachings like the cityfolk who have access to better schools. Many of these small tribes mix their pre-Islamic customs with Islam, and it’s just stupid.

You can’t really blame the guy though. He hasn’t had any school to go to to learn real Islam, because every school that existed has already been bombed to hell.

87

[quote]Kamran114 wrote:
…You can’t really blame the guy though. He hasn’t had any school to go to to learn real Islam, because every school that existed has already been bombed to hell.[/quote]

Islamic schools are almost the only schools in Afghanistan and they certainly have not all been bombed to hell.

88

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Who decided that causing someone else pain was wrong?[/quote]

Everyone decided that pain is wrong. Nobody, including the people who uphold these laws, wants to experience pain or be treated like shit. And the only reason they don’t abolish such laws is because it grants them certain powers, plain and simple.

Definition? Easy: don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want to be done to you.

But don’t worry Lifticus. With the advancements in medicine one day we’ll be able to transfer your conscience into an incubator-grown body of a 11yo girl and then rape you. So that you’ll get some first hand education on morals. Sure beats the Moor’s. Can’t wait!

89

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

its all the same thing. relativity and relativism – same damn thing.

And here is where you end - if you don’t know the difference, and if you didn’t even know there was a difference, then thanks for providing me with some unintended comedy. [/quote]

You’re arguing over semantics here. One could easily make the case that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to moral values. Moral relativism can be extremely dangerous, and I don’t believe in its absolute application - so to speak - but arbitrarily defining an age for sexual maturity is silly.

Yes, 11 years old too young in my opinion, but allow me to present some points you might have missed. The idea of instating laws to prosecute adults having sex with 17 years old is the exception rather than the rule. The purpose of such laws are to make sure no adult takes advantage of the generally naive teenager, causing the latter to make bad decisions and run away from home. Such cases have often turned out in a life of debauchery for the kid. In Afghanistan, family values trump everything else, and contexts in which the scenario above could occur does not exist. Girls (and boys) are rushed - harrassed? - into marriage by their family and society. Again, 11 years old is young indeed, and I’m willing to bet an arm that the there are extraordinary circumstances that lead her father to give away his own at that young age (It was neither a simple nor light decision to make for the parents, I’m guessing).

Relativity is a close cousin to relativism. Both are natural laws in my opinion, but arguing that is conjectural at best.

90

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you have to aske that, then you have either never had a daughter, or you are a pedophilic piece of shit.

11 year-olds are incapable of adult thought process. [/quote]

Generally, that is true.

But an 11-years old who’s never known hunger, insecurity and who watches Disney crap matures a lot slower than one who’s seen her brother beheaded, her village repeatedly bombed, who has to walk miles to fetch a bucket of water, and who has to work to feed her kid siblings.

There are very bright kids and there are very stupid adults. I can’t vouch the girl in this case is wise or smart, but you are clearly an illustration of the idiotic adult who can’t even put an argument together.

91

[quote]lixy wrote:

You’re arguing over semantics here. One could easily make the case that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to moral values. Moral relativism can be extremely dangerous, and I don’t believe in its absolute application - so to speak - but arbitrarily defining an age for sexual maturity is silly. [/quote]

Nope - and let’s start where the pathetic Lifticus opened up: by reference to Einstein as the authority. Einstein himself said the theory had no application no morals/ethics - this, of course, is the same man proposed as an authority to prove the opposite point.

Second, the “principles” have already been proposed and debated - the principles of relativism go back to the ancient Greeks and Aristotle’s treatment of that fatuous argument. Nothing we have uncovered in science has informed that old debate - the logic hasn’t changed. The “uncertainty principle” is not new and has been part of the argument for centuries.

Actually, it’s not - and I am not surprised at your limitations. “Relativism” engages the popular culture only because it has been revived as a way to try and argue against personal or international imperialism. The story goes: if one culture/moral isn’t better than another, the justification for telling someone else they are wrong and imposing a different value is gone and there is no basis for the imperialism.

Dumb enough on its face, it is an agenda driven philosophy that doesn’t add up. Saying “you have no right to force someone into your set of values” is…wait for it…a [u]universal principle and value[/u] that is supposed to apply in all cases regardless of context - a moral absolute. That defeats Relativism by application of Relativism itself.

Why does this matter? If you follow it to its logical conclusion, Relativism says you can impose your values any way you want to by whatever means you want - because there is no moral absolute that says “no” or “you can’t do that”. If we live in a relativistic world, I can do whatever I want - and I have no one to tell me any different, because with no absolute truths, there are no absolute rights.

Numbskulls pushing Relativism can’t quite wrap their heads around the idea that their theory disproves itself and concludes a completely opposite agenda.

So, the theory of relativism is faulty on its face.

A better question is: “in a world where there are moral absolutes, even ones we struggle to understand, where do we draw the line between imposing those moral absolutes and leaving people be?”

Not the same question. But Relativism is a philosophical dead end - and has been since the Greeks, regardless of Einstein’s theory, which he himself said was limited to hard science.

92

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nope - and let’s start where the pathetic Lifticus opened up: by reference to Einstein as the authority. Einstein himself said the theory had no application no morals/ethics - this, of course, is the same man proposed as an authority to prove the opposite point. [/quote]

Without sounding disrespectful to the great mind of Albert Einstein, I have to precise that the man challenged Bohr and Heisenberg over the uncertainty principle. He simply didn’t like it, and that’s understandable given the burgeoning state of quantum physics at the time. I also believe the fact that he was a believer made it harder for him to accept it.

The Wiki summarizes the conjectural nature of such a debate pretty neatly. Allow me to quote it:

Whether Einstein’s view or Heisenberg’s view is true or false is not a directly empirical matter. One criterion by which we may judge the success of a scientific theory is the explanatory power it gives us, and to date it seems that Heisenberg’s view has been the better at explaining physical subatomic phenomena.

I don’t support Lifticus’ views on the it’s-ok-the-11-years-old-is-married-to-a-40-years-old-in-2007 case, but simply because you don’t believe relativism is rooted in natural law is no excuse for being an ass.

93

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If you have to aske that, then you have either never had a daughter, or you are a pedophilic piece of shit.

11 year-olds are incapable of adult thought process.

Generally, that is true.

But an 11-years old who’s never known hunger, insecurity and who watches Disney crap matures a lot slower than one who’s seen her brother beheaded, her village repeatedly bombed, who has to walk miles to fetch a bucket of water, and who has to work to feed her kid siblings.

There are very bright kids and there are very stupid adults. I can’t vouch the girl in this case is wise or smart, but you are clearly an illustration of the idiotic adult who can’t even put an argument together.[/quote]

You are not old enough to have a child, nor have you spent a single day of your worthless exisitence hungry. You know not a fucking thing about which you speak, other than your love for raping young innocents.

There is no need for arguing about a subject like this.

Now go rape a baby, shut the fuck up, and stop trying to speak as if you know a goddamned thing you little pedophilic ass fucking piece of shit.

94

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Outside of Sharia Law, having sex,(forcing sex, actually) with an unwilling participant is rape!

Well, if she’s forced then that’d be obviously considered rape. I was under the impression that it was not the case here.

If you got details supporting your hypothesis, do share. Till then, what makes you think the guy is going to have sex with her, let alone rape her? He could be impotent. He could have married her just to provide a roof and meals to the kid. It’s a long shot, but it’s certainly not something you can rule out.

So, if you are sure the girl is unwilling and is forced into having sex with the dude, then that’ll be rape. But until you can substantiate that, I’ll continue to consider it a condemnable marriage. We are on the same side here and I don’t see why you’re attacking me for not applying the term rape in this case. Long ago, people matured much quicker, lived a lot less, and marrying as soon as one hit puberty was common. Today, things have changed. Most 18 years old are childish and silly. Marrying young is often an irresponsible act. Many poor families resort to marrying their girls quite young because they view it as the best thing for their daughters. It’s certainly not an easy choice, but it often comes down to slaving in the fields and sweatshops, prostitution, or marriage.

Now that this is out of the way, why the heck did you drag Islam into this? [/quote]

Am I to guess this part of the article?
[i]The image is startling �?? a 40-year-old groom sitting beside his 11-year-old future bride. Photographer Stephanie Sinclair, who took the photo last year in Afghanistan, asked the pre-teenage bride what she felt on the day of her engagement.

“Nothing,” said the girl, according to Sinclair. “I do not know this man. What am I supposed to feel?”[/i]

Now, my guess is that a kid who does not know a person isn’t terribly excited to have sex with him. On top of that fact that most 11 year old kids aren’t really thinking about sex all that much. Most of them are just learning about it really and would rather play and hang out with their friends then have a dry 40 year old cock rammed into her virginal, hairless pussy. Especially, when the dude looks like that. I willing to bet that even if it were Brad Pitt, she would not want to fuck him. If she has any tits at all they are just buds; a further indication that she is still pretty far from being a sexual creature. And after that dry old fucker nails her, she will never be a sexual creature; she probably rather have the stomach flu.

Yes, in the “old” days people married young, but not that young. 13 to 16 years old would be average. On top of that the husbands would be around the same age, not some elderly geezer which this guy would be considered to be in the “old” days. Cavemen would still consider this sick.

As far as islam’s involvement, they are islamic, married in an islamic ceremony in an islamic country. Am I supposed ignore that fact? The fact that you can’t see it for what it is lends me to believe that your belief in the same faith, though you find the overall action to be condemnable on one level, also causes or is at least part of the reason you lend some sympathetic feelings to a system that allows such a thing because it is allowed in some interpretations of islam, obviously.

95

Wow! I have never read such heated, meaningless, ignorant words on this site before.

Your western culture and mores are not the end all be all of universal action.

I find it funny that white people think they can push what they think is right (moral) and think it has nothing to do with their culture and or relativity.

If you want proof of the insignificance of your moral principles take no further look than the fact that they would not exist without weaponry to defend them. Your morals are not only relative to what you know but also relative to how strong or weak you are. If I am stronger than you you will do what I say. I am the moral authority.

If you act in a way that I find displeasing you are behaving immorally.

96

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Right. He basically bought a working uterus.
[/quote]

Most 11 year old girls do not yet have a functioning uterus, save for a very few early bloomers. She is barely starting puberty. She won’t be ready for a couple of years at least. Hopefully by then he will either be killed, die of something, or his dick will shrivel up.

[quote]
And pat:
What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. A 40 yr old fucking an 11 yr old is wrong on any planet at any time; she’s a kid. She is miserable. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, raping is wrong, etc.
Interesting you automatically assume it’s rape. [/quote]

Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.

97

[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t support Lifticus’ views on the it’s-ok-the-11-years-old-is-married-to-a-40-years-old-in-2007 case, but simply because you don’t believe relativism is rooted in natural law is no excuse for being an ass.[/quote]

I never stated it was ok. Go back to the first page where I said I agree with Zap’s sentiment.

I said it doesn’t matter because there is nothing anyone can do about with the exception of setting the example.

As far as Einstein goes the reason he could accept uncertainty were for the same reason the majority of “mainstream” academics do not accept new theory…because it is new.

98

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Wow! I have never read such heated, meaningless, ignorant words on this site before.
[/quote]

You are the go to guy for meaningless, ignorant words on this site.

Defense of pedophilic activity tends to make for heated discussions between those that are encouraging such behavior, or participate in such activities, and those that find the sexual, physical, and mental abuse of a child indefensible.

How is this a shock to you?

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Wow! I have never read such heated, meaningless, ignorant words on this site before.

Your western culture and mores are not the end all be all of universal action.

I find it funny that white people think they can push what they think is right (moral) and think it has nothing to do with their culture and or relativity.

If you want proof of the insignificance of your moral principles take no further look than the fact that they would not exist without weaponry to defend them. Your morals are not only relative to what you know but also relative to how strong or weak you are. If I am stronger than you you will do what I say. I am the moral authority.

If you act in a way that I find displeasing you are behaving immorally.[/quote]

I have. Good Lord there is no other place on this site that has more meaningless drivel that the P&WI forum.

Now what your having trouble with is a case for meta ethics. What is right? What is wrong? What makes right, right and wrong wrong? What is pain and why is it “bad”? Is pain bad? Why is hurting people cosidered bad? What is good? What is bad?, etc. I have mulled over such questions in the past but there simply isn’t enough data storage or processing power on this website to have such a conversation. I hence, follow pretty safe bets, like causing a child undue harm is a bad thing. Fucking an pre sexual person is a morally depraved thing. Abusing and mistreating girls as just property is a bad thing, etc. There is no relativity here. Causing other people pain for selfish plesure is morally depraved. It does not matte one fucking iota if it is accepted in a culture. And the Aztecs use to pull the hearts out of living woman and children. That act was deplorable and morally depraved despite the fact that it was the norm. The world is a better place since the Aztecs left it; in my opinion.

100

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.[/quote]

Let’s make this academic so as not to insult people’s sensibilities.

Let me pretend I am a child who is curious about such topic. Explain to me, as a child who has no understanding of “adult” conventions such as morality why this is wrong.

Suspend your disbelief that I am not a child and explain it like you would explain it to a four year old.