Iraqi girl stoned to death for having Sunni boyfriend

[gtc]

I think the point of disagreement between the arguments you and Billy are making in this thread is that Billy has no intention of committing an atrocity against the people who committed the atrocity against this girl.

Yes atrocities are generally preceded by the dehumanisation of the victims of the atrocity but that does not imply that dehumanisation leads to the atrocity.

I hope we could all agree that:
a) It is not desirable for people to behave as the perpetrators and bystanders behaved and in fact
b) People ought to behave in a better manner
c) The specific perpetrators and bystanders deserve punishment.

If that is the case, then we simply have a semantic disagreement as to whether appropriate behaviour should be labelled civilized and those who did not behave appropriately should be labelled uncivilized.

Does this help?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by gtc

I think the point of disagreement between the arguments you and Billy are making in this thread is that Billy has no intention of committing an atrocity against the people who committed the atrocity against this girl.

Yes atrocities are generally preceded by the dehumanisation of the victims of the atrocity but that does not imply that dehumanisation leads to the atrocity.

I hope we could all agree that:
a) It is not desirable for people to behave as the perpetrators and bystanders behaved and in fact
b) People ought to behave in a better manner
c) The specific perpetrators and bystanders deserve punishment.

If that is the case, then we simply have a semantic disagreement as to whether appropriate behaviour should be labelled civilized and those who did not behave appropriately should be labelled uncivilized.

Does this help?

Interestingly, I only care for one label for those who did or stood and watched it. Dead,slowly.

And for anyone who thinks I have not thought this out pretty thoroughly, as with abortion (for) and atheist (for) I have believed this way with no break since the mid-to-late 1950's and have heard/read nothing that shook me on these in the remaining 47-8 years. And I have heard and read a lot in that time.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, point taken. I take it back. Although I still don't see any justification for the word "ever." How about in 50 years? How many years has it been since we had lynchings?

If there were a lynching today, wouldn't it be unequivocally condemned? Would anyone frantically attempt to find a similar atrocity in another culture in order to demonstrate that it wasn’t so bad?

This is silly. The shock and outrage expressed here is expressed at the behavior, not at the ethnicity of the people committing the behavior. It would be expressed at the behavior no matter where in the world it happened.

A girl was brutally murdered by a mob. The mob is not dehumanized by the people who find their actions terrible, they dehumanized themselves with behavior that placed themselves so far outside the bounds of what civilized people find acceptable. It would be just as shocking and draw the same outrage if it happened in London or New York City by white people of European descent.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Darat

No they are "simply" human beings who did a terrible deed, shooting them will not undo the deed.

They should still be shot. At least to prevent them from doing it again.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

the irony of this comment is obviously lost on you

The desire for in-group/out group splits, the tendency to dehumanise the out-group and the justification of out group atrocity.

you exhibit exactly the same base instincts.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen someone post on this forum. And that means it's pretty dumb.

The fact that I believe these people should be shot has nothing to do with "in group/out group splits". If they were Caucasian Americans I would believe the same thing. It has nothing to do with their race, nationality or even religion. It has to do with their ACTIONS. They murdered a innocent girl in cold blood and they should be shot for doing so. I don't need to dehumanize them. They did that themselves.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

They should still be shot. At least to prevent them from doing it again.

We educators like to refer to that as terminal education - it teaches them to never do it again - and there are no recidivists.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

terms like "barbaric" and "uncivilised" are only a stones throw [so to speak] from "savages" [see Dustin]. To dehumanise an outgroup might appeal to base human behaviour but it's such a tendancy that leads to atrocity. The irony of a statement like "The people who did this are simply ignorant savages who need to be shot" should not be lost on anyone. One should be able to acknowledge such a fact without being seen to condone such actions.

No one's dehumanizing them. They dehumanized themselves. Moreover, Our opposition to them has nothing to do with their race, nationality, ethnicity or religion. It has to do with the actions they have chosen to commit. The atrocious actions that makes them savages. Not their race, religion or nationality. Get it?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Robert Wright explains some of the history of the terms "savage," "barbaric" and "civilized" in his book Nonzero. If these people need to be shot, it should be because they are murderers, not because they are "savages." (Technically speaking, "savages" are, or were, what we now refer to as "hunter-gatherers," so the term would not appear to apply to these particular people.)

Quote:

1 : a person belonging to a primitive society
2 : a brutal person
3 : a rude or unmannerly person

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Savage

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Daylight

I forced myself to watch it.

For an uncivilized tribe, there sure were a lot of cell phones taking pictures. They were knocking themselves over to get their cell phone in close enough. The one thing that struck me was they all seemed to be enjoying it like it was a big party.

It also shows it’s time for the troops to come home. The 3000+ KIA and thousands wounded was not so these morons can do stuff like this.

Not all Iraqi's are like this. An argument can be made that the Iraqi's who want peace and democracy should be protected and these people punished and the only way this can happen is with our being involved in Iraq. Since clearly the Iraqi police at that scene need to be shot as well.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

it is exactly this tendency to dehumanise that lies at the heart of our ability to commit atrocity. The values are emotive and arbitrary - and very open to manipulation. Who makes the distinction for what point someone "forfeits their humanity" or some culture/race/people "forfeits their humanity"? And once that humanity has been forfeit, what then can be justifed against them? What can not?

This kind of logic is incredibly dangerous. Since the Nazis have been brought into this already, the Jews, the gypsies, the disabled were dehumanised. The slave trade required that Africans were dehumanised. Japanese atrocities in Asia required that Chinese and Koreans were dehumanised. Allied actions aginst the Germans required that they were dehumanised. Choose a conflict today, any in-group/out group split - and at the heart of an ability to commit murder/rape/torture is a propensity to dehumanise.

The only people doing the dehumanizing are these people themselves. The Nazi's didn't dehumanize the Jews. The couldn't. They could make it seem like they weren't equally human but in reality they were more human than the Nazi's. In this case I don't need to try to dehumanize these Savages, they've done it themselves.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

AndyAndy defending murderous Islamic Yazidi fascists who brutally stoned a teenage girl to death for dating someone..What a class act! Of course I'm not surprised by any of this based on his previous posts.

• He equates criticism of this act to the act itself.
• He says we should not try to "dehumanize them" as if they haven't done that themselves.
• He compares the treatment of the Jews by the Nazi's to criticism of a group of men for stoning a girl to death for dating a boy from another religion.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by fuelair

We educators like to refer to that as terminal education - it teaches them to never do it again - and there are no recidivists.

The changes of them "changing their ways". Going from psychotic Islamic Yazidi fundamentalist fanatics who brutally stone a girl to death to tolerant Muslims Yazidi's isn't going to happen. It's just not.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

AndyAndy defending murderous Islamic fascists who brutally stoned a teenage girl to death for dating someone..What a class act! Of course I'm not surprised by any of this based on his previous posts.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

The changes of them "changing their ways". Going from psychotic Islamic fundamentalist fanatics who brutally stone a girl to death to tolerant Muslims isn't going to happen. It's just not.

Dustin,

Listen to me very carefully. Stop me if you get confused.

There are no "Islamic fascists" at work here. At all. The men who committed this barbaric crime are not Muslim in any way, shape, or form. They are Yazidi, a different religion altogether. She was being stoned because she was dating a Muslim.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Dustin,

Listen to me very carefully. Stop me if you get confused.

There are no "Islamic fascists" at work here. At all. The men who committed this barbaric crime are not Muslim in any way, shape, or form. They are Yazidi, a different religion altogether. She was being stoned because she was dating a Muslim.

Excuse my confusion.

Quote:

AndyAndy defending murderous Islamic Yazidi fascists who brutally stoned a teenage girl to death for dating someone..What a class act! Of course I'm not surprised by any of this based on his previous posts.

Quote:

The changes of them "changing their ways". Going from psychotic Islamic Yazidi fundamentalist fanatics who brutally stone a girl to death to tolerant Muslims Yazidi's isn't going to happen. It's just not.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Excuse my confusion.

Well, I'm glad that you've managed to study the Yazidi people at such a detailed level that you feel comfortable making such pronouncements.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Well, I'm glad that you've managed to study the Yazidi people at such a detailed level that you feel comfortable making such pronouncements.

I've never studied them. All I know is that this specific group of people did a bad thing.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

I've never studied them.

Nooooooo....Really?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Nooooooo....Really?

It's disingenuous to quote only one thing I say in my post while ignoring the rest. None of my pronouncements said anything about the Yazidi people as a whole, merely this specific group of them. Including the Police officers and civilians who stood around and did nothing, who may or may not have been Yazidi.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Nooooooo....Really?

Have you?

Would it make any difference for the purpose of this discussion?

If we were not talking about a Yazidi community murdering a teenage girl but were instead talking the savages that murdered Matthew Shepard, would anyone be suggesting that understanding the culture of the attackers in any way mitigates the crime? Would anyone be making silly semantic points over the use of the word "savage"? Would anyone be claiming that condemning the attackers was “dehumanizing” them?

I don’t think so.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Is this a serious question?

Nah. More like sarcastic.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by andyandy

the irony of this comment is obviously lost on you

The desire for in-group/out group splits, the tendency to dehumanise the out-group and the justification of out group atrocity.

you exhibit exactly the same base instincts.

I understand his sentiment, though. Two wrongs don't make a right. We all know that. But on an emotional level, we all cry out for poetic justice.


However, let me ask, would you have a problem with the police using lethal force to intervene in this situation? As in, they shoot the attackers to save the young woman. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

I understand his sentiment, though. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're assuming killing them for doing this would be a "wrong".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

I understand his sentiment, though. Two wrongs don't make a right. We all know that. But on an emotional level, we all cry out for poetic justice.


However, let me ask, would you have a problem with the police using lethal force to intervene in this situation? As in, they shoot the attackers to save the young woman. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Yes I would have a problem with it as my first thought is that they should intervene to protect the person being attacked and arrest the attackers so that they can face justice.

However I do accept that sometimes that is not always going to be possible and that sometimes killing someone is necessary (I would avoid a phrase like "lethal force" as I think it tends to sanitise what actually happens). But that killing should always create "problems" for that society, i.e. be investigated and scrutinised so that it can be clear it was the appropriate option.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

They should still be shot. At least to prevent them from doing it again.

Which I would say continues the idea in that society that violence is a legitimate way to solve issues.

For reform to work examples need to be created, an example would be showing that these people acted outside what is acceptable and therefore society will put them on trial, ensure that trial is fair and then (if guilty) pass an appropriate sentence on them.

I've grown up with part of my society accepting that arbitary "rough justice" (which Members like fuelair advocate) i.e. shooting and knee capping was acceptable and the way to maintain "order" and "deter" people.

I've seen at first hand the result of that - it perpetuates the misery, the suffering and the very behaviour it claims to be stopping. Only when the idea that is not acceptable no matter what the so called "rationale" and no matter who it is done to does change start to happen in that part of society.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which I would say continues the idea in that society that violence is a legitimate way to solve issues.

It can sometimes.

Originally Posted by Darat

For reform to work examples need to be created, an example would be showing that these people acted outside what is acceptable and therefore society will put them on trial, ensure that trial is fair and then (if guilty) pass an appropriate sentence on them.

Bullet to the head.

Originally Posted by Darat

I've grown up with part of my society accepting that arbitary "rough justice" (which Members like fuelair advocate) i.e. shooting and knee capping was acceptable and the way to maintain "order" and "deter" people.

I've seen at first hand the result of that - it perpetuates the misery, the suffering and the very behaviour it claims to be stopping. Only when the idea that is not acceptable no matter what the so called "rationale" and no matter who it is done to does change start to happen in that part of society.

How does it perpetuate misery?

[Daylight]

We seen the ad’s on TV about the Kurd area is a different Iraq. Safer, more educated, a good investment…..

There is a lot on the line for them and this video is a major blow to them, even though the Kurds were not involved. Is there a possibility the Kurds may address the issue? Most likely violently? Possibly wiping out all Yazidi tribes in the Kurd sector of Iraq?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

AndyAndy defending murderous Islamic Yazidi fascists who brutally stoned a teenage girl to death for dating someone..What a class act! Of course I'm not surprised by any of this based on his previous posts.

andyandy has not defended anybody (in this thread) who has committed a terrible and atrocious act. I think you need to re-read his posts.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

• He equates criticism of this act to the act itself.

No he doesn't - he, like I have done have discussed the wider implications of such an act and he has quite deftly pointed out that some of the reactions in this thread follow the same pattern that led to a situation where some people believed their actions were presumably acceptable or appropriate in some way. Don't forget one Member has stated that knee capping is a an acceptable and appropriate part of punishment on the way to being killed slowly and not only for the active participants but bystanders and so on. That is not equating the criticism of the act to the act itself - it is equating some similar human behaviour/motivation to some of the responses in this thread.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

• He says we should not try to "dehumanize them" as if they haven't done that themselves.

No he doesn't.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

• He compares the treatment of the Jews by the Nazi's to criticism of a group of men for stoning a girl to death for dating a boy from another religion.

No he doesn't.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Darat

andyandy has not defended anybody (in this thread) who has committed a terrible and atrocious act. I think you need to re-read his posts.

I think you do...

Originally Posted by Darat

No he doesn't - he, like I have done have discussed the wider implications of such an act and he has quite deftly pointed out that some of the reactions in this thread follow the same pattern that led to a situation where some people believed their actions were presumably acceptable or appropriate in some way. Don't forget one Member has stated that knee capping is a an acceptable and appropriate part of punishment on the way to being killed slowly and not only for the active participants but bystanders and so on. That is not equating the criticism of the act to the act itself - it is equating some similar human behaviour/motivation to some of the responses in this thread.

Wrong

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=34

Originally Posted by Darat

No he doesn't.

Wrong

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=23

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=34

Originally Posted by Darat

No he doesn't.

Wrong

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=34

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

It can sometimes.

I am not referring to war and the like, I am referring to the context of the violence that has been discussed in this thread.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Bullet to the head.

Most "civilised" societies in the world consider capital punishment wrong.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

How does it perpetuate misery?

You really don't understand how such acts cause misery? Arbitrary justice by destroying someone's kneecaps either by bullets or blunt force? You don't understand that? I am astonished.

I would suggest you perhaps try reading some articles about the Troubles and the continuing aftermath for people and the communities that have been subjected to such punishment.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by gtc

I think the point of disagreement between the arguments you and Billy are making in this thread is that Billy has no intention of committing an atrocity against the people who committed the atrocity against this girl.

Yes atrocities are generally preceded by the dehumanisation of the victims of the atrocity but that does not imply that dehumanisation leads to the atrocity.

I hope we could all agree that:
a) It is not desirable for people to behave as the perpetrators and bystanders behaved and in fact
b) People ought to behave in a better manner
c) The specific perpetrators and bystanders deserve punishment.

If that is the case, then we simply have a semantic disagreement as to whether appropriate behaviour should be labelled civilized and those who did not behave appropriately should be labelled uncivilized.

Does this help?

I'd only make the case that "dehumanisation" is a necessary condition but not that it is a sufficient condition for atrocity - so i certainly don't mean to imply any intention for Billy.

and the rest sounds fair enough.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

I think you do...

...snip...

I re-read all the posts in this thread this morning, nothing in what you have linked to says what you claim it does.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

AndyAndy defending murderous Islamic Yazidi fascists who brutally stoned a teenage girl to death for dating someone..What a class act! Of course I'm not surprised by any of this based on his previous posts.[list]

dustin your propensity for moronic comment is unequalled on JREF. Where did i amount a defence?

here?

Originally Posted by andyandy

Indeed, by expounding an argument for sub-humanity, one undermines any absolute concept of human rights. One should be able to recognise such a notion without being accused of being an apologist. One can indeed condemn such actions as a group stoning without resorting to simplistic and dangerous human/sub human divisions.

no.

here?

Originally Posted by andyandy

i appreciate you are condemning these actions - as I am too. To point out that the very same dehumanising tendency which you are exhibiting is at the root of human propensity for atrocity is indeed a valid one, and wholly irrespective of emotive "apologist" perjoratives.

no.

This merely requires a basic English comprehension ability.

Originally Posted by dustin

He equates criticism of this act to the act itself.

No.

Originally Posted by andyandy

The desire for in-group/out group splits, the tendency to dehumanise the out-group and the justification of out group atrocity.

you exhibit exactly the same base instincts.

Again you appear to lack a basic misunderstanding of English.

Originally Posted by dustin

He says we should not try to "dehumanize them" as if they haven't done that themselves.

I do say that we shouldn't dehumanise. Well done for understanding this!

Originally Posted by dustin

He compares the treatment of the Jews by the Nazi's to criticism of a group of men for stoning a girl to death for dating a boy from another religion.

No.

Originally Posted by andyandy

Since the Nazis have been brought into this already, the Jews, the gypsies, the disabled were dehumanised. The slave trade required that Africans were dehumanised. Japanese atrocities in Asia required that Chinese and Koreans were dehumanised. Allied actions aginst the Germans required that they were dehumanised. Choose a conflict today, any in-group/out group split - and at the heart of an ability to commit murder/rape/torture is a propensity to dehumanise.

Again you exhibit an absolutely basic lack of any English language comprehension.

[Zep]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

You're assuming killing them for doing this would be a "wrong".

You're assuming that your POV is "right".

Just to summarise: It was an appalling act by any standards of human decency and demands justice. But it would be very wrong of anyone to ascribe an incorrect reason for it happening. And it would be equally wrong to not act in a cool, fair and reasoned manner in dealing out that justice.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Zep

You're assuming that your POV is "right".

...snip... And it would be equally wrong to not act in a cool, fair and reasoned manner in dealing out that justice.

Only of course if you ascribe to the idea that justice should be cool, fair and reasoned which some people obvious don't.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Darat

I am not referring to war and the like, I am referring to the context of the violence that has been discussed in this thread.

Via retribution?

Originally Posted by Darat

Most "civilised" societies in the world consider capital punishment wrong.

As do I.

Originally Posted by Darat

You really don't understand how such acts cause misery? Arbitrary justice by destroying someone's kneecaps either by bullets or blunt force? You don't understand that? I am astonished.

Why do you keep bringing up knee caps?

Originally Posted by Darat

I would suggest you perhaps try reading some articles about the Troubles and the continuing aftermath for people and the communities that have been subjected to such punishment.

Give me an example.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Zep

You're assuming that your POV is "right".

Just to summarise: It was an appalling act by any standards of human decency and demands justice. But it would be very wrong of anyone to ascribe an incorrect reason for it happening. And it would be equally wrong to not act in a cool, fair and reasoned manner in dealing out that justice.

We know they did it.

This act is too severe for them to get a chance to "change their ways".

Putting a bullet through their head would be the NICE thing to do. Ridding the world of their presence would do nothing accomplish good.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Via retribution?

Don't understand your comment.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

As do I.

Yet you also say: "... Putting a bullet through their head would be the NICE thing to do. Ridding the world of their presence would do nothing accomplish good. ..."

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Why do you keep bringing up knee caps?

I don't - I "keep" bringing up knee capping and I do that because it has been proposed as a suitable part of these people's punishment.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Give me an example.

Try "northern ireland punishment kneecapping" as a search term in google. Also see http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2000/272.html and read the report it is talking about.

ETA:

Also see: Northern Ireland: Are the Troubles Over?
West Belfast's Biggest Issue?
Punishment Beatings: A grip of fear

[andyandy]

5.43

Originally Posted by darat

Most "civilised" societies in the world consider capital punishment wrong.

Originally Posted by dustin

As do I.

5.46

Originally Posted by dustin

This act is too severe for them to get a chance to "change their ways".

Putting a bullet through their head would be the NICE thing to do. Ridding the world of their presence would do nothing accomplish good.

Did you have a change of heart in those 3 minutes? Or do you think that state sanctioned capital punishment is wrong , but extra-judicial execution is ok? Or do you think it's wrong, but actually think it's right? Or are you just confused?

edit.

lol

i've just noticed the delicious irony of a line in my previous post

"Again you appear to lack a basic misunderstanding of English."

oops

[Schmitt.]

Originally Posted by Darat

At the height of the troubles in NI many people were attacked, beaten and ostracised for dating someone of the wrong religion (I don't know of any cases offhand but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't some people killed for that, after all being of the "other" religion made you a legitimate target never mind if you were fooling around with "our boys or girls").

The Royal Ulster Constabulary wasn't above being involved with (see, eg., here; the attack on Devenny and his daughters was especially perplexing and brutal) or watching on as attacks like these happened either.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which I would say continues the idea in that society that violence is a legitimate way to solve issues.

For reform to work examples need to be created, an example would be showing that these people acted outside what is acceptable and therefore society will put them on trial, ensure that trial is fair and then (if guilty) pass an appropriate sentence on them.

I've grown up with part of my society accepting that arbitary "rough justice" (which Members like fuelair advocate) i.e. shooting and knee capping was acceptable and the way to maintain "order" and "deter" people.

I've seen at first hand the result of that - it perpetuates the misery, the suffering and the very behaviour it claims to be stopping. Only when the idea that is not acceptable no matter what the so called "rationale" and no matter who it is done to does change start to happen in that part of society.

Actually, my statement was partially misinterpreted - the people who would be educated/deterred are the people who did the act or stood by without helping the girl. I have no certainty that any of the other primitives would make good decisions/choices in view of what happened (if all involved were killed). Terminal education only works for certain on an individual basis - the person terminated does not ever again perform the act that required the termination. It is a form of individualized instruction - for our educators in the audience. It has a simple but effective IEP.


D> I understand the slime you are talking about - and understand that you may not understand a distinction. I do however. The kneecapping thugs are doing it over ideas - political and or religious. I do not advocate any harming of persons for their ideas - only for violent action against their own or against others who have different ideas. Everyone has a right to their own ideas/opinions and should not be hurt, killed, imprisoned for them - only actions should be punishable - and certain actions swiftly and certainly. The OP specifies an action that I would have no difficulty punishing.