Re: WOT Teddy Bear Naming Cause for Imprisonment and Whipping?

On Dec 3, 1:32 am, Mike Burke <mbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:18:44 -0800 (PST), Larisa

<purple_bov...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neither do I, but in a situation where such things can happen, and
have happened, you have to expect that they are likely to happen
again, justified or not.

If we expect such things to happen and do not consider them in any way
unusual, they will not arouse a reaction in the Western world. An
outraged reaction might cause some kind of change. A shrug and "Well,
this is what she should have expected to happen" will not.

Sure. But the problem can be avoided (or at least minimised) by
people being aware and taking care. That doesn't mean that this
should govern their lives, eg by forcing Western women into wearing
hijabs etc, but it should mean that nations will not be forced to go
to war to avenge or protect their citizens from the virtually
inevitable outcome of their own stupidity, pride or, worse, sheer
arrogance.

But what if they define Western women's failure to wear hijabs as
"stupidity, pride, and sheer arrogance"? Do we all get forced to wear
them then?

The problem is that these standards shift; this is why appeasement is
generally not a good strategy. The more we try to "understand" these
fanatics and the more we blame ourselves for their outrageous
behavior, the more they will expect us to concede.

Sure - but if we excuse such behavior by the phrase "Well, she was
asking for it", the social norms will not change in a direction that
will make such assaults less likely. It was only when the phrase "she
was asking for it" was dropped from the judicial vocabulary that rape
became a much more serious matter.

No. It was just as likely to be because rape became a much more
serious matter that the phrase she was asking for it was dropped from
the judicial vocabulary if, in fact, it ever existed in such
vocabulary outside the media or informal chat.

Oh, it did. It was only relatively recently that this changed.

I totally disagree with the idea that you can simply wish something
away by refusing to give it a name or to allow it to be discussed. The
word '***' will still exist, and will continue to need to be
recognised and understood for what it is in all its manifestations and
shades of meaning, no matter how successful the movement to ban it
becomes. (NB: Would you believe that the spell checker in my
newsreader - Agent - does not have a reference to '***'. How
profoundly stupid. The absence of the word forced the checker to
highlight its absence, thus surely giving it a great deal more
significance than it deserves in this context.)

Similarly, people who recklessly or carelessly indulge in foolhardy
behaviour in dangerous places will still be said to have been 'asking
for it' when the inevitable occurs. Wishful thinking or semantics
will do absolutely nothing to change this situation, and the sort of
'megaphone diplomacy', ie loud and widespread expressions of public
outrage, while quite appropriate within our own cultures and
communities, are more likely to be counterproductive in these
intercultural circumstances.

You know, I'm not so sure about that. I think that appeasement, and
saying "Well, they just don't know any better" and "Well, we just need
to understand their culture" and all that, is far worse.

We need to be outraged at what is happening in the Muslim world. This
is not normal behavior for normal human beings. We need to
acknowledge that and react accordingly. This is not something "to be
expected" - it is a pathology.

Then I'd seriously advise you never to go there, Larisa. As Ayaan
Hirsi Ali insists, with these sorts of Muslims, you are not dealing
with normal human beings, and they are quite impervious to Western
influence or brow-beating.

Oh, I won't go there, and I won't support them with my money.
(insofar as I am able) What does Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggest as a way to
minimize the threat of these fanatics?

LM
.