This thread has now split into two very different topics.
One is the respect of other cultures and the other is the tolerance or intolerance of human rights violations. Most times these are two very clear separate issues, and sometimes there can be a gray area that overlaps. The lines defining the boundaries of morals, mores and behavior can and do veer greatly from one culture to the next.
The OP's intention, was as always, not meant to bring attention to an extremely serious issue, but to somehow infer a correlation between a tragic human rights violation and Barrack Obama. His only intent was to flame. I would think if anything MR, you would take offense at the OP's exploitation of the stoning in a juvenile attempt to play the same old stupid left vs. right game. His post here, as in most cases, is worthless.
The issue of human rights violations is one, I think, most of us can agree is neither a left or right issue but, get ready now...a human issue. Whether it's the stoning of a woman in Iran, the forced clitoral mutilation of young girls or the exploitation by certain American companies of cheap child labor abroad, these are beyond the boundaries of culture and are by no means exclusive to any one country, let alone certain cultures. One thing that is constant is human nature and no amount of education, money or perceived station in life will ever change that. The fact that these practices fall under the real or imagined auspices of diverse respective cultures makes it very difficult to collectively, as humans, change or eradicate them. The awareness of these tragedies and the continuing dialog of what can and might be done, through boycotts, protest and elections, is an important step in hopefully bringing an end to these crimes in the name of "culture".
There are some cultures that should not be respected. I don't consider capital punishment of hardcore criminals to be harsh compared to stoning someone to death for appearing to have an affair based on two males in the township saying she did. I dont think someone who murders multiple innocent people is entitled to keep their life here on earth, they have rendered themselves a danger to society and useless. They don't deserve others to pay for them for the rest of their life.
This is off topic but you brought it up. I don't agree with or believe in capital punishment. I do think that it is a societies responsibility to pay for the incarceration, for life if need be, of its members who have proven themselves a danger and unable to coexist with others. I know the basic reaction to a heinous crime is quick and extreme punishment, but the problem for me isn't so much what the perpetrator deserves but rather what kind of society do we choose to be. Do we, as a collective people, lower ourselves to the level of killer and taker of human life. In the big picture, aside from the barbaric instinct of revenge, it's not a very steep price to pay to lock away these aberrations to society. Do realize that in a debate I could also offer a convincing counter argument to everything I just wrote
, but it's the what I choose to believe. The clincher for me, as pertaining to capital punishment is, what do you tell yourself and the friends and family of the wrongly executed person whose innocence is proven after the fact?...oops doesn't really cut it.
But either way, are we executing or accidentally killing those we are interrogating all the time? They walk away with virtually no damage...
How do you know that?
This thread now has some serious points worth discussing. All, however, in spite of the OP, not due to him.
