Muslim country in the Middle East has highest rate of acid attacks on women [Archive]

baron

31st May 2012, 12:04 PM

First of all, it says attacks "might" be higher in Colombia.

Then it states there were 42 reported attacks last year, yet they reported only last month that a single hospital in Pakistan saw one or two new cases every week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17676542

So at a conservative estimate that's 60 cases a year in one Pakistani hospital alone. It's pretty difficult to reconcile a figure of 60 in a single hospital with 150 or less in the entire country. The reporting here is dire.

In Bangladesh official figures show 212 incidents in 2005 (latest), down from 366 in 2002. Even 212 is 165% more after population adjustment than the 42 quote from Colombia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Survivors_Foundation#Comparative_statistics_o f_2005_and_2006

Once we've dealt with the figures we could then look at what inspires these attacks. In Colombia is it Christianity, or the result of Christian culture? No, I see no link whatsoever. Christianity does not mandate drug wars or mugging. Yet when a Pakistani man throws acid at a women for not covering her head, or pours acid into his daughter's face for being female or refusing an arranged marriage, that relates directly to religion-inspired culture and that religion is, in the main, Islam.

Here are some examples of Pakistani acid attack victims, including a 5-year old girl who had acid poured onto her face by her own father as she slept because he hadn't wanted another girl (NSFW - graphic) http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/alleyes/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html

crimresearch

31st May 2012, 12:12 PM

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 12:21 PM

Then it states there were 42 reported attacks last year, yet they reported only last month that a single hospital in Pakistan saw one or two new cases every week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17676542

So at a conservative estimate that's 60 cases a year in one Pakistani hospital alone. It's pretty difficult to reconcile a figure of 60 in a single hospital with 150 or less in the entire country. The reporting here is dire.

As the article notes, Pakistan also has four times the population of Colombia.

Once we've dealt with the figures we could then look at what inspires these attacks. In Colombia is it Christianity, or the result of Christian culture? No, I see no link whatsoever. Christianity does not mandate drug wars or mugging. Yet when a Pakistani man throws acid at a women for not covering her head, or pours acid into his daughter's face for being female or refusing an arranged marriage, that relates directly to religion-inspired culture and that religion is, in the main, Islam.

So, when Pakistani men throw acid in women's faces, it's all because of Islam. But when Colombian men throw acid in women's faces it's because...why, again?

Responses like yours are exactly why I started this thread. Here we have, in Colombia, a country that has no connection to Islam whatsoever. And yet scores (probably hundreds, depending on how many unreported cases there are) of women there are horrifically assaulted by having acid thrown on them, while the men responsible for such attacks go virtually unpunished.

And all you can focus on is how Islam is the root cause of the similar problem in Pakistan and Bangladesh, minimizing and spinning away the the very same tragic epidemic in a Christian, Western country, because that you can't find a way to blame on Islam.

baron

31st May 2012, 12:23 PM

Riiiiight... nothing in Colombia's history suggests that their culture is in any way, shape, or form influenced by a specific religion... that's only for Mooozlum culture, right?

:rolleyes:

http://www.colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/8573-un-urges-colombia-to-improve-womens-rights.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Colombia

Your links bear no relationship to what you said and what you said bears no relationship to what I wrote. Other than that, great post.

I Ratant

31st May 2012, 12:27 PM

As the article notes, Pakistan also has four times the population of Colombia.

So, when Pakistani men throw acid in women's faces, it's all because of Islam. But when Colombian men throw acid in women's faces it's because...why, again?

...
.
I'd say lack of easy access to easy women... which is surely strange in Colombia!:confused:

ehcks

31st May 2012, 12:31 PM

Why would any country have high rates of acid attacks on anyone?

Acid? Where do you even find cups of acid to throw at people?

tomwaits

31st May 2012, 12:34 PM

Why would any country have high rates of acid attacks on anyone?

Well, someone has to have the "highest rate".

Tony

31st May 2012, 12:34 PM

I'll never understand the urge some atheists have to come rushing to the defense of Islam as if it is some poor, misunderstood orphan.

baron

31st May 2012, 12:35 PM

As the article notes, Pakistan also has four times the population of Colombia.

And as I said, I took population into account in the Bangladeshi figures. And the extrapolation of the 60-100 incidents in a single hospital means that you'd have to defy reason to come up with a figure which, when divided by 4 was less than 42 for the entire country.

So, when Pakistani men throw acid in women's faces, it's all because of Islam. But when Colombian men throw acid in women's faces it's because...why, again?

It tells you why in the article. Mugging, control of population by armed groups, sexual violence by gangs and domestic violence by husbands. If you want to make a case for any of these being linked to Christian culture go ahead. Any such relationship is so tenuous as to be easily dismissed. I'm sure many a Pakistani man has thrown acid for reasons unrelated to Islam, but to deny the clear connection in many cases is to bury your head in the sand.

Why would any country have high rates of acid attacks on anyone?

Acid? Where do you even find cups of acid to throw at people?

Shops sell the stuff quite freely in these countries.

Tony

31st May 2012, 12:35 PM

Acid? Where do you even find cups of acid to throw at people?

This is what I wonder. How the hell do these people come across cup sized portions of acid that they then can carry with them to their destination?

Modified

31st May 2012, 12:43 PM

This is what I wonder. How the hell do these people come across cup sized portions of acid that they then can carry with them to their destination?

It's pretty easy in the US. Just go into a home improvement store and buy the drain cleaner that comes in a bottle inside a sealed plastic bag.

tomwaits

31st May 2012, 12:43 PM

Lye is readily available.

baron

31st May 2012, 12:47 PM

Responses like yours are exactly why I started this thread. Here we have, in Colombia, a country that has no connection to Islam whatsoever. And yet scores (probably hundreds, depending on how many unreported cases there are) of women there are horrifically assaulted by having acid thrown on them, while the men responsible for such attacks go virtually unpunished.

And all you can focus on is how Islam is the root cause of the similar problem in Pakistan and Bangladesh, minimizing and spinning away the the very same tragic epidemic in a Christian, Western country, because that you can't find a way to blame on Islam.

I missed this because you added it later.

No, you started this thread as a cheerleader for Islam. You're not interested in the tragedy of Colombian acid attacks otherwise you would have just started a thread about them. Instead you entitled the thread "Muslim country... has highest rate of acid attacks" and then went on to say, "Oh no, actually it's a Christian one." Aside from the fact your assertion is demonstrably wrong, I find capitalising on such tragedy in an effort to push your own Islamic agenda is pretty distasteful.

Madalch

31st May 2012, 12:50 PM

This is what I wonder. How the hell do these people come across cup sized portions of acid that they then can carry with them to their destination?
You wouldn't "come across" a cup-sized portion, you'd find a bottle and fill a cup. Wouldn't most mechanics have a quantity of battery acid on hand?

Bikewer

31st May 2012, 12:51 PM

Quite aside from the mode of attack, it's been the case for a very long time that South American cultures have tolerated violence towards women. In Brazil, until only recently, homicides of women whos boyfriends or husbands suspected of infedelity were committed with almost complete impunity.
Likewise general domestic violence. Part of the culture of "machismo", according to the pundits.
In fact, this seems to be the case in much of the world; NPR ran a series of articles on the prevalence of spousal violence in Asian cultures.

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 12:51 PM

And as I said, I took population into account in the Bangladeshi figures. And the extrapolation of the 60-100 incidents in a single hospital means that you'd have to defy reason to come up with a figure which, when divided by 4 was less than 42 for the entire country.

"And according to the Dhaka-based Acid Survivors Foundation, Bangladesh, which has a population of 165 million compared with Colombia's 47 million, saw 84 attacks in 2011."

How about your figures now?

It tells you why in the article. Mugging, control of population by armed groups, sexual violence by gangs and domestic violence by husbands. If you want to make a case for any of these being linked to Christian culture go ahead. Any such relationship is so tenuous as to be easily dismissed. I'm sure many a Pakistani man has thrown acid for reasons unrelated to Islam, but to deny the clear connection in many cases is to bury your head in the sand.

So, when it happens in a Christian country, there are a whole host of complex reasons behind it that have nothing to do with religion. But when it happens in a Muslim country, there's a very simple, direct explanation for it: religion.

The implication, of course, is if we could just get those countries to stop being Muslim, problems like acid attacks on women would then just go away.

And Colombia shows the giant, gaping flaw in that little theory.

Plus, I like how you so blithely describe what is the main reason for the acid attacks on women (as opposed to the separately-described use of acid in muggings) as "sexual violence by gangs and domestic violence by husbands", rather than using the term you'd use had these very same attacks been carried out for the very same reason by Muslims: honor violence.

It's a double standard. And, worse, when all the attention is focused on the religion of the attackers when the attacks are carried out by Muslims, the non-Muslim victims and perpetrators get completely ignored.

The problem isn't "Islam", it's attitudes towards women. Attitudes that are shared by and are the cause of problems in countries and cultures all over the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Madalch

31st May 2012, 12:52 PM

It's pretty easy in the US. Just go into a home improvement store and buy the drain cleaner that comes in a bottle inside a sealed plastic bag.

Lye is readily available.
While these are corrosive as all-get-out, these are strong bases, not acids.

tomwaits

31st May 2012, 12:54 PM

While these are corrosive as all-get-out, these are strong bases, not acids.

Ok. But when people say "throw acid" or "acid attacks" they aren't really being technical about it, are they?

Madalch

31st May 2012, 12:56 PM

Ok. But when people say "throw acid" or "acid attacks" they aren't really being technical about it, are they?
They ought to be.

tomwaits

31st May 2012, 12:59 PM

Saying there was a "corrosive substance attack" just doesn't have that same ring to it, though.

baron

31st May 2012, 01:10 PM

"And according to the Dhaka-based Acid Survivors Foundation, Bangladesh, which has a population of 165 million compared with Colombia's 47 million, saw 84 attacks in 2011."

How about your figures now?

The figures are unchanged. You made the assertion that Colombia has more acid attacks than any other country, despite even the article not asserting this, so it's up to you to provide the evidence. So far, the only evidence you have come up with is an article saying it might be and another article, by the same agency the month before, demonstrating that it isn't.

But this doesn't even alter the argument. I could accept your assertion and, as Hitchens used to say, you still have all your work ahead of you.

So, when it happens in a Christian country, there are a whole host of complex reasons behind it that have nothing to do with religion. But when it happens in a Muslim country, there's a very simple, direct explanation for it: religion.

So let's hear what these connections are. It's you who made the Christian connection, it's there in your first post, so explain what it is.

The implication, of course, is if we could just get those countries to stop being Muslim, problems like acid attacks on women would then just go away.

Not the implication I've given, being that it's clear culture informed religion which informs culture, so simply getting rid of the religion wouldn't make any significant difference in the short term. It would be a start of course although it's a moot point being that it couldn't be done.

And Colombia shows the giant, gaping flaw in that little theory.

No it doesn't, it's a nonsensical connection. The acid is relevant only as a comment on the callousness and barbarism of the perpetrators, it's the causes of the violence against women that's under discussion. The same causes you're about to describe with reference to their roots in Christian culture.

Plus, I like how you so blithely describe what is the main reason for the acid attacks on women (as opposed to the separately-described use of acid in muggings) as "sexual violence by gangs and domestic violence by husbands", rather than using the term you'd use had these very same attacks been carried out for the very same reason by Muslims: honor violence.

What is the honour element in mugging? What is the honour element in 'simple' domestic violence? Where is the honour element in rape and mutilation. Show your evidence that these crimes are honour-inspired, using the bastardised definition of the word.

It's a double standard. And, worse, when all the attention is focused on the religion of the attackers when the attacks are carried out by Muslims, the non-Muslim victims and perpetrators get completely ignored.

The problem isn't "Islam", it's attitudes towards women. Attitudes that are shared by and are the cause of problems in countries and cultures all over the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

You really do take the cake. You cheerlead Islam, the greatest single source of the contemporary inequality, subjugation and degradation of women on the planet, then criticise me for daring the link the two.

WildCat

31st May 2012, 01:11 PM

This is what I wonder. How the hell do these people come across cup sized portions of acid that they then can carry with them to their destination?
Any hardware store in the US.

6 quarts for $18.87 at Lowe's! (http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay?partNumber=117269-84862-Z-PACK&langId=-1&storeId=10151&productId=1005607&catalogId=10051&cmRelshp=rel&rel=nofollow&cId=PDIO1)

WildCat

31st May 2012, 01:16 PM

They ought to be.
"Base attack" would just confuse people... I didn't know we had military bases in Colombia!

Howie Felterbush

31st May 2012, 01:21 PM

You wouldn't "come across" a cup-sized portion, you'd find a bottle and fill a cup. Wouldn't most mechanics have a quantity of battery acid on hand?

Battery acid would be a pretty lame thing to attack someone with.

Unless the plan was to put a bunch of little holes in their jeans. It doesn't do any real instant damage to skin. I remember the first time I had a battery tip over on me while I was filling it. I thought it was going to be like the blood from the creature in Alien, bubbling and fizzing and eating through both me and the floor. It just wiped right off. I was a little bummed.

MG1962

31st May 2012, 01:31 PM

So, when Pakistani men throw acid in women's faces, it's all because of Islam. But when Colombian men throw acid in women's faces it's because...why, again?

In Australia a ways back we had a real rash of these types of attacks. I suspect it was a case some twisted individual thought it was a good idea and a bunch of men with irrational grudges did copycat attacks

Noztradamus

31st May 2012, 01:49 PM

"Base attack" would just confuse people... I didn't know we had military bases in Colombia!

All your base are belong to US

crimresearch

31st May 2012, 01:53 PM

Your links bear no relationship to what you said and what you said bears no relationship to what I wrote. Other than that, great post.
Visiting that strip club in Bahrain again? You know, DeNile?

James Fox

31st May 2012, 02:00 PM

What an idiotic tempest in a tea pot adolescent bating argument about whose religion in what hemisphere is the worst when it comes to violence toward women. Priceless.

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 02:02 PM

The figures are unchanged. You made the assertion that Colombia has more acid attacks than any other country, despite even the article not asserting this,

"Acid-throwing is more usually associated with violence against women in countries such as Bangladesh or Pakistan, but current trends suggest the risk of women being disfigured and blighted by acid might actually be higher in Colombia."

So let's hear what these connections are. It's you who made the Christian connection, it's there in your first post, so explain what it is.

94.5% of the population in Colombia is Christian. 0.02% is Muslim.

Obviously it's not Islam that's causing men to throw acid on women all over the world, because it's prevalent even in countries that have no connection whatsoever to Islam. It's hard to get to correlation equals causation when you don't even have correlation.

What is the honour element in mugging?

Who said there was? That's why both I and the article talk about acid mugging attacks separately from acid attacks against women.

What is the honour element in 'simple' domestic violence? Where is the honour element in rape and mutilation. Show your evidence that these crimes are honour-inspired, using the bastardised definition of the word.

Because they result from machismo culture (http://lilt.ilstu.edu/psanders/litsearch/domviol.html) in Latin America. That's why Latin America also has its own "honor murder" problem - the so-called "honor defense" in criminal murder cases is still a part of the penal codes (http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/42e7191fae543562c1256ba7004e963c/$FILE/G0210428.pdf) of Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Venezuela (and the report notes that even in countries like Brazil where the "honor defense" is not officially part of the penal code, it's still used in criminal trials and convictions are still sometimes overturned by higher courts of appeal, based on the use of the "honor defense" by defendants).

I didn't start this thread to try and make the point that Colombia is actually worse than Pakistan or Bangladesh or anything. I started this thread to highlight the fact that those people who are so loudly "concerned" about things like Muslim acid attacks on women don't really care about the "acid attacks on women" part. They only care about the "Muslim" part.

All those Colombian women blinded and disfigured in these attacks? Well, they're just on their own.

Tony

31st May 2012, 02:05 PM

Any hardware store in the US.

6 quarts for $18.87 at Lowe's! (http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay?partNumber=117269-84862-Z-PACK&langId=-1&storeId=10151&productId=1005607&catalogId=10051&cmRelshp=rel&rel=nofollow&cId=PDIO1)

Thanks to WildCat and others. Having never been in the market for acid, I had no idea it was so easy to get.

crimresearch

31st May 2012, 02:06 PM

What an idiotic tempest in a tea pot adolescent bating argument about whose religion in what hemisphere is the worst when it comes to violence toward women. Priceless.
Then quit bringing it up, and stick to the OP topic.

baron

31st May 2012, 02:07 PM

What an idiotic tempest in a tea pot adolescent bating argument about whose religion in what hemisphere is the worst when it comes to violence toward women. Priceless.

I think it's very important to identify the causes of violence and subjugation of women, and to do so impartially and without kowtowing to any misguided notion of religious respect. The alternatives are to either dismiss the subject or to sink into the disingenuous bog of religious, cultural and moral relativism, neither of which is useful or honest.

crimresearch

31st May 2012, 02:15 PM

I think it's very important to identify the causes of violence and subjugation of women, and to do so impartially and without kowtowing to any misguided notion of religious respect. The alternatives are to either dismiss the subject or to sink into the disingenuous bog of religious, cultural and moral relativism, neither of which is useful or honest.
If it so important, then what is your agenda in tossing around all these debate tricks to derail a thread where people are doing exactly that?

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 02:19 PM

I think it's very important to identify the causes of violence and subjugation of women, and to do so impartially and without kowtowing to any misguided notion of religious respect. The alternatives are to either dismiss the subject or to sink into the disingenuous bog of religious, cultural and moral relativism, neither of which is useful or honest.

All you have to do is compare the way the UN report linked above on the topic of violence against women talks about the worldwide causes and consequences of it, with the way people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller talk about it.

baron

31st May 2012, 02:39 PM

"Acid-throwing is more usually associated with violence against women in countries such as Bangladesh or Pakistan, but current trends suggest the risk of women being disfigured and blighted by acid might actually be higher in Colombia."

Might be higher; current trends suggest. Again, the article does not back up your categoric assertion and neither does the data available elsewhere. But let's take a leap of faith and say you're right. Let's see what your point is...

94.5% of the population in Colombia is Christian. 0.02% is Muslim.

Obviously it's not Islam that's causing men to throw acid on women all over the world, because it's prevalent even in countries that have no connection whatsoever to Islam.

Anybody who suggests that Islam is the sole cause of acid attacks worldwide needs their head examined. I've not known anybody make that claim and for certain I have never done so.

It's hard to get to correlation equals causation when you don't even have correlation.

How about this, which I must admit I thought I'd made clear: There are many gender-linked attacks on women worldwide. The methods used are multiple - fists, knives, guns, acid. The reasons are multiple too and include machismo culture, sexual dominance, control, revenge and yes, Islamic culture.

Now one of those we're not allowed to mention. Can you guess which it is?

Who said there was? That's why both I and the article talk about acid mugging attacks separately from acid attacks against women.

I'd imagine that a man mugging a female would do so because she was an easy target, or perhaps to rape her afterwards, so we can't say they are totally separate.

Because they result from machismo culture (http://lilt.ilstu.edu/psanders/litsearch/domviol.html) in Latin America. That's why Latin America also has its own "honor murder" problem - the so-called "honor defense" in criminal murder cases is still a part of the penal codes (http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/42e7191fae543562c1256ba7004e963c/$FILE/G0210428.pdf) of Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Venezuela (and the report notes that even in countries like Brazil where the "honor defense" is not officially part of the penal code, it's still used in criminal trials and convictions are still sometimes overturned by higher courts of appeal, based on the use of the "honor defense" by defendants).

Fine, so let's go with that. Let's say that X% of acid attacks in Latin America are down to the machismo culture and the concept of preservation of male honour. That's good, we've identified a source and as such I'm more than happy to condemn it and discuss ways in which it can be eradicated.

If only you'd do the same when it came to Islam and Islamic culture.

People who are so loudly "concerned" about things like Muslim acid attacks aren't women don't care about the "acid attacks on women" part. They only care about the "Muslim" part.

Hang on a minute, it was you who entitled the thread "Muslim... Acid Attacks." If you had wanted to discuss the situation in Colombia why mention Muslims? You are doing the very thing you accuse others of and using these tragedies as a weapon in your fight to protect Islam from criticism.

All those Colombian women blinded and disfigured in these attacks? Well, they're just on their own.

Hopefully Colombian women will be getting more help as a result of the research undertaken into the core problem and the steps taken to prevent it, and they may also take heart from the fact there are no queues of Western apologists lining up to defend these Colombian males as happens with their Muslim equivalents when Islam is at the root of things. Maybe one day Muslim women will be afforded the same basic courtesy so that their problems can be addressed.

James Fox

31st May 2012, 02:39 PM

Then quit bringing it up, and stick to the OP topic.

I think it's very important to identify the causes of violence and subjugation of women, and to do so impartially and without kowtowing to any misguided notion of religious respect. The alternatives are to either dismiss the subject or to sink into the disingenuous bog of religious, cultural and moral relativism, neither of which is useful or honest.

Culture, religion, misogyny, sexism and macho idiocy are clearly the factors that excuse, allow, and encourage acid attacks and many other forms of violence toward women. Reasonable discussions about these issues and how they are fostered in particular countries is certainly a valid and productive topic for discussion. It’s a shame the OP decided to ignore the real issues of violence toward women and opted instead for some kind of comparison critique that seems quite irrelevant to the OP’s stated topic of acid attacks toward women.

baron

31st May 2012, 02:41 PM

If it so important, then what is your agenda in tossing around all these debate tricks to derail a thread where people are doing exactly that?

Are you drunk?

baron

31st May 2012, 02:43 PM

Culture, religion, misogyny, sexism and macho idiocy are clearly the factors that excuse, allow, and encourage acid attacks and many other forms of violence toward women. Reasonable discussions about these issues and how they are fostered in particular countries is certainly a valid and productive topic for discussion. It’s a shame the OP decided to ignore the real issues of violence toward women and opted instead for some kind of comparison critique that seems quite irrelevant to the OP’s stated topic of acid attacks toward women.

I agree. And if the subject had been couched in the terms you describe, and I described earlier, I would have been happy to never mention Islam or anything but the subject at hand. But as it is the OP has set the topic and that topic is flag-waving for Islam, which is why I chipped in.

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 02:55 PM

Hang on a minute, it was you who entitled the thread "Muslim... Acid Attacks." If you had wanted to discuss the situation in Colombia why mention Muslims? You are doing the very thing you accuse others of and using these tragedies as a weapon in your fight to protect Islam from criticism.

Because, as I've mentioned twice already (though one of those times was in an edit to the post you replied to), I started this thread to both publicize the fact that violence against women (even via such specific methods as acid attacks) is an endemic problem that cuts across all national, cultural, and religious boundaries, and to highlight the double standard and bigoted agenda of those people who like to meticulously document every single occurrence of crimes like this in a Muslim country or community, while completely ignoring its prevalence in countries and cultures where Islam isn't a factor.

Again, I refer you to the UN report I linked above. This story from Colombia will come as no surprise to anyone who's familiar with that report or the information in it. Anyone who gets all their news about acid attacks on women from places like Jihad Watch, though, will probably have no idea that hundreds of women in Latin America are suffering under the exact same kind of assault as the hundreds of women in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

And they'll probably have the same reaction you do: "Oh, Colombian men do this for a whole lot of different reasons, totally disconnected from their religion and culture. But Pakistani men still do it because of Islam!"

tomwaits

31st May 2012, 02:59 PM

There was that movie Crazy Love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Love_%282007_film%29) that involved such an incident in New York between the infamous couple Burt Pugach and Linda Riss. They were jews, though. Not sure what this says about the OP but it was an entertaining movie.

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 03:04 PM

Not sure what this says about the OP but it was an entertaining movie.

Well, I'd just spent the last few days posting heavily in defense of Christianity and Christians in a couple of threads here. I was concerned that my reputation among the usual crowd here as an "Islam Apologist" might be diminished as a result, so I figured I had to do something to make up for it quick.

baron

31st May 2012, 03:09 PM

Because, as I've mentioned twice already (though one of those times was in an edit to the post you replied to), I started this thread to both publicize the fact that violence against women (even via such specific methods as acid attacks) is an endemic problem that cuts across all national, cultural, and religious boundaries, and to highlight the double standard and bigoted agenda of those people who like to meticulously document every single occurrence of crimes like this in a Muslim country or community, while completely ignoring its prevalence in countries and cultures where Islam isn't a factor.

It would depend on context. As I said, anybody who believes that Islam is behind every acid attack, or even most acid attacks, is an out-and-out idiot. Such people can be safely ignored and certainly they should not have threads started for their benefit.

However, if someone makes the link between Islamic culture and acid attacks then they have made a perfectly fair observation and they should not be criticised for making that point. It's no different to making the Colombian link with machismo culture, or the more global link with alcohol. The presence of one cause doesn't negate or diminish the impact of another.

Again, I refer you to the UN report I linked above. This story from Colombia will come as no surprise to anyone who's familiar with that report or the information in it. Anyone who gets all their news about acid attacks on women from places like Jihad Watch, though, will probably have no idea that hundreds of women in Latin America are suffering under the exact same kind of assault as the hundreds of women in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Indeed they are and if people aren't aware of this then they are ignorant. On the other hand Jihad Watch is dedicated to criticising Islam so you can hardly expect it to start discussing non-related matters.

I still strongly maintain that your approach in the OP does the subject no favours and pitting one set of tragedies against another to attempt to prove a point is distasteful.

And they'll probably have the same reaction you do: "Oh, Colombian men do this for a whole lot of different reasons, totally disconnected from their religion and culture. But Pakistani men still do it because of Islam!"

And yet I said very early on that many Pakistani men do not do it because of Islam. How come you conveniently ignored this? The key issue here is you refuse to accept that Islam has any part to play in the issue of violence against - and repression of - women, and until you leap this significant hurdle and start being honest with yourself there's little sensible debate to be had.

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 03:26 PM

I still strongly maintain that your approach in the OP does the subject no favours and pitting one set of tragedies against another to attempt to prove a point is distasteful.

Quite possibly, yes. I often need people to remind me, every so often, that I'm doing something I really, really shouldn't be doing.

However, something kind of pushed me to the breaking point recently, and so I felt the need to vent. This story appearing on my BBC feed simply provided the catalyst.

And yet I said very early on that many Pakistani men do not do it because of Islam. How come you conveniently ignored this?

Because I didn't start this thread to argue with you. If you really want to spend some time and energy, I'd really prefer it if you do so helping out here (http://www.equalitynow.org/actions) instead.

The key issue here is you refuse to accept that Islam has any part to play in the issue of violence against - and repression of - women,

No, I'm well aware of that and fully accept it. I even gave you a recommendation for a book that is pretty much all about discussing the problem of gender issues in Islam.

What I'm lashing out against is the blinkered, exclusionary focus on only Islam when it comes to issues exactly like this. Especially by those who claim to be "critics of Islam", because they're doing worse than not helping the situation.

and until you leap this significant hurdle and start being honest with yourself there's little sensible debate to be had.

No one is making you post in this thread.

crimresearch

31st May 2012, 03:44 PM

However, if someone makes the link between Islamic culture and acid attacks then they have made a perfectly fair observation and they should not be criticised for making that point. It's no different to making the Colombian link with machismo culture...

A link that you dismissed earlier...

A national survey revealed that 84% of women feel that Colombia is a machista country and that three-quarters of women feel discriminated against.

Your links bear no relationship to what you said and what you said bears no relationship to what I wrote. Other than that, great post

Obvious pretzel is obvious...

I Ratant

31st May 2012, 03:49 PM

"And according to the Dhaka-based Acid Survivors Foundation, Bangladesh, which has a population of 165 million compared with Colombia's 47 million, saw 84 attacks in 2011."

How about your figures now?

So, when it happens in a Christian country, there are a whole host of complex reasons behind it that have nothing to do with religion. But when it happens in a Muslim country, there's a very simple, direct explanation for it: religion.

The implication, of course, is if we could just get those countries to stop being Muslim, problems like acid attacks on women would then just go away.

And Colombia shows the giant, gaping flaw in that little theory.

Plus, I like how you so blithely describe what is the main reason for the acid attacks on women (as opposed to the separately-described use of acid in muggings) as "sexual violence by gangs and domestic violence by husbands", rather than using the term you'd use had these very same attacks been carried out for the very same reason by Muslims: honor violence.

It's a double standard. And, worse, when all the attention is focused on the religion of the attackers when the attacks are carried out by Muslims, the non-Muslim victims and perpetrators get completely ignored.

The problem isn't "Islam", it's attitudes towards women. Attitudes that are shared by and are the cause of problems in countries and cultures all over the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
.
It is the attitudes towards women, but these have different forcing factors in different cultures.
The Latin lover will be outraged that his beauty isn't appreciated, for instance.
The Paki will throw the acid because the woman isn't in a burqua.
One attack is ego, the other is religion. Both are stupid, but the religion is the stupider.

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 04:09 PM

.
It is the attitudes towards women, but these have different forcing factors in different cultures.
The Latin lover will be outraged that his beauty isn't appreciated, for instance.
The Paki will throw the acid because the woman isn't in a burqua.
One attack is ego, the other is religion. Both are stupid, but the religion is the stupider.

I personally don't think it's any less stupid for a man to feel justified in mutilating a woman simply because he's a narcissistic self-centered ******* than because he thinks his Deity of Choice is cool with it.

It's definitely not any more acceptable to do it for non-religious reasons than for religious reasons. "Sure, Colombian men throw acid on women, but it's not like they're doing it because they're Muslim or anything" is the absolute wrong response, as far as I'm concerned.

ehcks

31st May 2012, 04:31 PM

However, if someone makes the link between Islamic culture and acid attacks then they have made a perfectly fair observation and they should not be criticised for making that point. It's no different to making the Colombian link with machismo culture, or the more global link with alcohol. The presence of one cause doesn't negate or diminish the impact of another.

I don't see how. You can't link one religion to acid attacks when an apparently equal amount of those attacks happen in a country of a different religion, as well as over a billion of people of that religion don't attack people with acid.

crimresearch

31st May 2012, 04:41 PM

Toontown

31st May 2012, 05:11 PM

Doesn't matter what their religion is. God is pissed.

God is pissed because He's sorry he made father-rapers, mother-stabbers, head-whackers, clit-snippers, acid-tossers...

The list of transgressions could go on indefinitely, but the bottom line is, He's pissed, and He's going to do something about it. And it's going to hurt. It's going to hurt bad, and it's going to hurt for a long, long time.

Don't mess with God. He's baaad. He created acid-tossers. Spit on some dirt, rolled it up in a ball, put the living whammy to it, and made it walk and talk.

He's been regretting it ever since though. Didn't really think it through. Didn't consider what that dirt was going to do when it became all animated and greedy and needy and beady-eyed and such. He just made that dirt walk because He could.

But He's going to fix that dirt. Fix it good. Been making long range plans for that dirt. He hurt dirt long time.

I Ratant

31st May 2012, 06:35 PM

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 06:38 PM

In other acid-throwing news, apparently the spokesman for US Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-NY) has decided that if getting acid thrown on them is good enough for women in Pakistan and Colombia, well, then it ought to be good enough for female Democratic Senators, too! (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/hayworth-spokesman-townsend-female-democratic-senators-acid-hurl.php)

Naturally, he was careful to specify that this should only happen to the women.

Modified

31st May 2012, 06:39 PM

While these are corrosive as all-get-out, these are strong bases, not acids.

The drain cleaner that comes double-sealed is concentrated sulfuric acid. It will clear a drain when nothing else will, though it will also cause your entire house to smell like rotten eggs. I imagine skin damage might not be instantaneous as pointed out above though.

The fastest skin damage I've seen was a guy who spilled 50% hydrogen peroxide across his hand in a chemistry lab. It pretty much caused instant blistering. The damage wasn't as bad as it looked, but he got to the sink and rinsed it off in probably one second.

I Ratant

31st May 2012, 06:51 PM

And how exactly is the 'crime of passion' concept of offended machismo justifying outraged violence not a product of religious (Catholic Canon/Mosaic law) tradition in the culture, but outraged honor violence is?
.
The Colombian has an inflated idea of his worth.. He's a man, and she is only a ho-bitch.
The Paki may not be insulted personally, but sees the woman as not being submissive enough to the rules of Islam, even when he may not know her personally.
Her deviation from the Koran line has to be punished by the acid. Or cutting the nose off, or killing the girl student, or sending all the nurses home from the hospital..

crimresearch

31st May 2012, 06:52 PM

.
Both are culture driven.
The Colombian is likely to be Catholic, but vain and not acting as a Catholic, but as a douche.
The Paki has the religion's sanctions to justify his actions.
It's another failure of the "religion of peace" to actually be peaceful and tolerant.
Again, how is it 'not acting as a Catholic' to use Christian scripture and Catholic law to sanction honor violence against women and children, but it is acting as a Muslim to do exactly the same things for exactly the same reasons?

I Ratant

31st May 2012, 06:52 PM

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 06:59 PM

The Paki may not be insulted personally, but sees the woman as not being submissive enough to the rules of Islam, even when he may not know her personally.

No, it most definitely is taken personally. That's the honor part of "honor violence" - their own personal sense of honor, or the only slightly more expansive sense of family honor. If specific religious reasons are present at all, they're secondary to that.

Toontown

31st May 2012, 07:12 PM

.
Sumbitch better not try to find the source of the dirt.
Stay away from mirrors, god.

To understand God, think of a man. Then take away reason and accountability.

ANTPogo

31st May 2012, 07:20 PM

To understand God, think of a man. Then take away reason and accountability.

Given the focus of this thread (violence against women), I have no doubt whatsoever that your paraphrase of that line (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/As_Good_as_It_Gets) is entirely intentional.

And, coming from you, I must say that I'm not surprised in the least.

JeanFromBNA

31st May 2012, 07:38 PM

I have received extensive burns from sodium hydroxide. Because I didn't know what it was, I kept trying to rinse it off with water. Turns out that it's exothermic, Vinegar finally neutralized the chemical reaction that was chewing its way trough my epidermis.

Roger Ramjets

31st May 2012, 08:47 PM

I'll never understand the urge some atheists have to come rushing to the defense of Islam as if it is some poor, misunderstood orphan.I'll never understand the urge that some theists have to come rushing in to attack Islam as if it is some vast monolithic organization with a well understood nefarious goal.

Christians, Buddhists, Shintoists, even nominally Atheist organizations can be just as bad, if not worse. All religions are nutty at the core, and all are ripe for the abuse of power and trust. But that doesn't mean that religion makes people evil. People use religion to justify their actions, bending and shaping it to suit their nefarious goals.

So why single out Islam? Because you don't think it's as 'progressive' and 'tolerant' as Christianity? About 30% of Americans would like to see the US become a repressive theocratic state, and many others would not oppose it. Bashing Islam without acknowledging the aims of fundamentalist Christians in your own country is not only hypercritical, it's also stupid - because you are playing right into their hands (unless that's what you want to happen?).

you started this thread as a cheerleader for IslamRiight. So pointing out that Islam is not the only religion followed by those who commit violence against women is being a 'cheerleader' for it? Did you not know that the vast majority of Muslims are against throwing acid into womens' faces? If it's also being done by Christians, what does this tell you about their real motivations? Religion is just a convenient excuse, not the reason.

The OP is not 'cheerleading' for Islam, just providing some balance and recognition of the facts. You could wipe Islam off the map tomorrow, and it wouldn't stop violence against women. Because it's not the cause.

baron

1st June 2012, 04:53 AM

I don't see how. You can't link one religion to acid attacks when an apparently equal amount of those attacks happen in a country of a different religion, as well as over a billion of people of that religion don't attack people with acid.

Of course I can make that link and so can anybody willing to apply a sliver of reason. I've already explained very clearly that a phenomenon may have more than one cause and acknowledging all causes as worthy of attention is basic common sense.

Sometimes I reach the point of bafflement when I see people defend Islam like this. If we had been discussing how alcohol is a factor in violent attacks then everybody would engage in a sensible manner. There wouldn't be this upsurge of indignant people protesting that hey, billions drink alcohol and they don't attack anybody so it can't possibly be a factor. Neither would we hear things like, "Whoa, people attack other people over money so that proves alcohol isn't linked with violence!" It would be an absurdity in a conversation about anything but Islam, yet when Islam is in the mix it becomes par for the course.

Riight. So pointing out that Islam is not the only religion followed by those who commit violence against women is being a 'cheerleader' for it? Did you not know that the vast majority of Muslims are against throwing acid into womens' faces?

Gee, d'you think? Thanks for putting me right on that because I thought that every violent act ever perpetrated was down to Muslims. You live and learn.

If it's also being done by Christians, what does this tell you about their real motivations? Religion is just a convenient excuse, not the reason.

The OP is not 'cheerleading' for Islam, just providing some balance and recognition of the facts. You could wipe Islam off the map tomorrow, and it wouldn't stop violence against women. Because it's not the cause.

No, it's not 'the' cause and I have never in my life heard anybody say that it is. Why is this miserable straw-man trotted out time and again by Islam apologists? It is a cause. A cause. And as such it should be subjected to the same depth of scrutiny as all the others. You need to pull your head out of the sand and wise up. I'm sure it makes you feel fuzzy and warm to side with the downtrodden Muslim and be all progressive and liberal, but one day - soon, I hope - you'll realise that attitudes like yours are contributory to retarding the global fight for gender equality by refusing to acknowledge the problem and railing against those that do.

Dcdrac

1st June 2012, 05:12 AM

It is not jsut one religion that is targetting women and not just one weapon that is clear, targetting just one relious group is disingenuous

Look at Theocracywatch...........

http://theocracywatch.org/women2.htm

baron

1st June 2012, 05:16 AM

Jesus H Crazylegs Christ, I'm outta here.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 05:17 AM

I prefer to side with these Muslims, thank you very much.

http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/

Dcdrac

1st June 2012, 05:34 AM

Jesus H Crazylegs Christ, I'm outta here.

That does appear to be your standard response to people pointing out that is not just one religious group up to horrendous things, and even among those groups it is extremists.

baron

1st June 2012, 06:09 AM

That does appear to be your standard response to people pointing out that is not just one religious group up to horrendous things, and even among those groups it is extremists.

It's not my standard response, I've never written that before in my life. For the sake of variety I try to vary my expressions of exasperation with those who can't be bothered to read the thread and instead post up the exact same ignorant strawmen as have been addressed multiple times, including in the exact post before yours.

Dcdrac

1st June 2012, 06:14 AM

It is not a strawman to point out that singling out just one religious group as an exemplar of horrendous behaviour is clerly inaccurate and flying in the face of the facts.

The facts are there are extremists in all three of the monethestic religions who are attempting through various means and with varying degress of success to enforce their will on the majority population.

The vast majority of their co-religionists are not doing the same so to present one religiosu group as some homogenosu bloc is also inaccurate.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 06:23 AM

Not to mention that saying "sid with the downtrodden Muslim...[is] contributory to retarding the global fight for gender equality by refusing to acknowledge the problem and railing against those that do" [I]completely ignores groups like SIS in Malaysia, who see their faith as an integral part of their fight for equality and justice.

Dcdrac

1st June 2012, 06:34 AM

here is a site that provides food for thought in this issue and it breaks it down by religious group

http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/01443/fo_home.html

catsmate1

1st June 2012, 06:46 AM

I'll never understand the urge some atheists have to come rushing to the defense of Islam as if it is some poor, misunderstood orphan.
It seems to be the urge of that skeptics have to point out dubious assertions and unreliable, if popular "facts".

catsmate1

1st June 2012, 06:50 AM

<snip>
Shops sell the stuff quite freely in these countries.
In most countries.

This is what I wonder. How the hell do these people come across cup sized portions of acid that they then can carry with them to their destination?
Hardware shops.

It's pretty easy in the US. Just go into a home improvement store and buy the drain cleaner that comes in a bottle inside a sealed plastic bag.
Yes. I was in Homebase yesterday and they have 98% sulphuric acid in 500ml plastic bottles and sodium hydroxide in pellet form in 250g bags.

Ok. But when people say "throw acid" or "acid attacks" they aren't really being technical about it, are they?
Not really.

They ought to be.
You're talking about journalists. Accuracy is optional with many of them.

catsmate1

1st June 2012, 07:03 AM

In Australia a ways back we had a real rash of these types of attacks. I suspect it was a case some twisted individual thought it was a good idea and a bunch of men with irrational grudges did copycat attacks
It seems to be cyclical, one attack triggers a number of copycats and then the problem dies away for a while.
Acid attacks were relatively common in 50s/60s London amongst criminal gangs.

Dcdrac

1st June 2012, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Tony
I'll never understand the urge some atheists have to come rushing to the defense of Islam as if it is some poor, misunderstood orphan.

Personally I am not defending Islam just pointing out that you all the three monothesitic religions have their extremists using various strategies and weapons.

And when you look cloesly at all three their texts all have statements about women being inferior in them or serving their husbands or the source of sin and temptation, theres no getting away from it and singling out jsut one of them is clearly wrong.

Dcdrac

1st June 2012, 07:54 AM

The Eirc Rudolph case for instance is an example of religious extremism in action

http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/rudolph.htm

And others

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/07/christian-terrorism-exposed/

Xulld

1st June 2012, 08:17 AM

Battery acid would be a pretty lame thing to attack someone with.

Unless the plan was to put a bunch of little holes in their jeans. It doesn't do any real instant damage to skin. I remember the first time I had a battery tip over on me while I was filling it. I thought it was going to be like the blood from the creature in Alien, bubbling and fizzing and eating through both me and the floor. It just wiped right off. I was a little bummed.

Yea I was helping a guy jump his vehicle, and faster than I could yell no he had the negative to pos, and pos to neg. Boom, the battery exploded. I had small spatters of battery acid on my face and forearms. I was able to get it washed off in less than 5 minutes, it left little red dots of irritation but nothing else, I was happily surprised.

. . the guy was like . . . I didn't know that could happen, I wanted to strangle him.

I Ratant

1st June 2012, 09:29 AM

No, it most definitely is taken personally. That's the honor part of "honor violence" - their own personal sense of honor, or the only slightly more expansive sense of family honor. If specific religious reasons are present at all, they're secondary to that.
.
That "honor violence" has to go to the scrap heap also, to get out of the Stone Age.
It's a cultural situation older than the religion.
We jail people that do that "honor" thing to others.

I Ratant

1st June 2012, 09:31 AM

To understand God, think of a man. Then take away reason and accountability.
.
I usually add "crazed hate filled old" to "man", when thinking of the persons that assume god's role in society here, with their murders and violence, they do "in god's name".
(Apparently because god doesn't act quickly enough.)

Dcdrac

1st June 2012, 09:31 AM

has religion had its day as a useful mechanism?

crimresearch

1st June 2012, 09:38 AM

Of course I can make that link and so can anybody willing to apply a sliver of reason. I've already explained very clearly that a phenomenon may have more than one cause and acknowledging all causes as worthy of attention is basic common sense.

Sometimes I reach the point of bafflement when I see people defend Islam like this. If we had been discussing how alcohol is a factor in violent attacks then everybody would engage in a sensible manner. There wouldn't be this upsurge of indignant people protesting that hey, billions drink alcohol and they don't attack anybody so it can't possibly be a factor. Neither would we hear things like, "Whoa, people attack other people over money so that proves alcohol isn't linked with violence!" It would be an absurdity in a conversation about anything but Islam, yet when Islam is in the mix it becomes par for the course.

Gee, d'you think? Thanks for putting me right on that because I thought that every violent act ever perpetrated was down to Muslims. You live and learn.

No, it's not 'the' cause and I have never in my life heard anybody say that it is. Why is this miserable straw-man trotted out time and again by Islam apologists? It is a cause. A cause. And as such it should be subjected to the same depth of scrutiny as all the others. You need to pull your head out of the sand and wise up. I'm sure it makes you feel fuzzy and warm to side with the downtrodden Muslim and be all progressive and liberal, but one day - soon, I hope - you'll realise that attitudes like yours are contributory to retarding the global fight for gender equality by refusing to acknowledge the problem and railing against those that do.
Simply repeating the same strawman about 'you are defending Islam' as a magic wand to make the facts go away, doesn't seem to be working too well for you, even though you've added running away from inconvenient questions and denial to your mix.

Please do let us know if you come up with anything on topic, correct, or useful.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 09:38 AM

.
That "honor violence" has to go to the scrap heap also, to get out of the Stone Age.
It's a cultural situation older than the religion.

Yes.

We jail people that do that "honor" thing to others.

Absolutely yes.

CORed

1st June 2012, 09:50 AM

Battery acid would be a pretty lame thing to attack someone with.

Unless the plan was to put a bunch of little holes in their jeans. It doesn't do any real instant damage to skin. I remember the first time I had a battery tip over on me while I was filling it. I thought it was going to be like the blood from the creature in Alien, bubbling and fizzing and eating through both me and the floor. It just wiped right off. I was a little bummed.

Did you ever get battery acid in your eyes? I have, and it's not fun. It can also give you a pretty nasty skin burn, if you don't wash it off. It could also be boiled down to a more concentrated solution.

Mycroft

1st June 2012, 10:05 AM

I personally don't think it's any less stupid for a man to feel justified in mutilating a woman simply because he's a narcissistic self-centered ******* than because he thinks his Deity of Choice is cool with it.

It's definitely not any more acceptable to do it for non-religious reasons than for religious reasons. "Sure, Colombian men throw acid on women, but it's not like they're doing it because they're Muslim or anything" is the absolute wrong response, as far as I'm concerned.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment here, wouldn't you agree that perceived religious support for bad behavior is problematic because it adds extra barriers to changing the behavior?

If it's just a matter of changing one attitude, it's a lot easier. You set up a campaign that promotes a simple idea, "Macho men don't hurt women. People who hurt women are cowardly pussies" or whatever.

On the other hand, if people believe the awful behavior is supported by religion, then you add layers of complexity. You not only have to have a campaign that promotes the new idea, you also have to have a credible religious authority that says the new idea is better than the old idea, then you have to deal with the hold-outs who disagree with your religious interpretation and prefer their own "old-school" interpretation (old-school which right or wrong is associated with orthodoxy, which is associated with greater piety and greater correctness), plus you have to deal with those who don't want to listen to whatever you say because you're not part of their religious in-group and listening to you might open the door to the introduction of new ideas which leads to assimilation, etc.

I get that it's important to understand that certain problems do not belong exclusively to one religious group, but it's also important not to overlook how the religious aspect can be a compounding factor where it is involved.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 10:37 AM

Playing devil's advocate for a moment here, wouldn't you agree that perceived religious support for bad behavior is problematic because it adds extra barriers to changing the behavior?

I was hoping you'd post here, because I really value your opinion on things like this!

Anyway, I don't know that it adds extra barriers, so much as different barriers. Religion, for both good and ill, acts as a cohesive social and moral force (in that it shapes the morals of a society, not that it necessarily is "moral" in the sense of "good").

As you point out, it can be incredibly difficult to get religion in a society to change direction, but if you can, it will then make propagating moral changes within that society a lot easier. This is especially true in places with a much more coherent religious community. Not to mention the fact that it's easier to fight against conservatism and traditionalism when you're making only a few changes to society, rather than coming in and trying to make massively sweeping reforms to everything at once.

Take the example of the SIS in Malaysia, whose website I linked above. They find it much easier to try and change societal attitudes towards women and equality by couching those changes within a framework of Muslim religious faith, because it would be a lot harder to get Muslim society to accept gender equality if it's presented as something that's mutually exclusive with Islam. Because if you tell a highly religious society that you can either be modern and egalitarian but have to abandon your religious identity, or you can hold on to your religious identity but will have to reject any notion of women's equality, you're unlikely to get people flocking to the first choice. Since the abandonment of Muslim religious and cultural identity is associated with Western imperialism and cultural displacement, if you force that kind of either/or choice on people, they're most likely going to make the snap-choice to stick with their cultural and religious identity, even if they're unhappy with some of the practices of that culture and religion and would otherwise favor the particular and specific changes being offered by the non-Muslim culture.

By removing that false dichotomy, by saying you can be both devoutly Muslim and support gender equality, SIS and groups like them hope to make the acceptance of things like full equality for women easier to accomplish in Muslim states and communities. "This isn't an attempt to discard and replace your culture and your religion," they're saying, "because these things are a part of your culture and your religion, and therefore accepting them isn't any kind of 'surrender' to the imperialist West in some kind of Great Clash of Civilizations."

This has basically been the position of Muslim modernizers since the 19th Century, pioneered by the likes of al-Afghani and Abduh.

EDIT: And, regarding this issue in Colombia, the lack of a coherent religious response to this can make it more difficult to combat. A campaign saying "Macho men don't hurt women. People who hurt women are cowardly pussies" without any kind of moral social force like the Church behind it can easily result in men simply responding, "Oh yeah? Who says?", with the result that nothing actually ends up changing. Look at the way the anti-drug campaign (especially the anti-marijuana campaign) in the US has failed to gain traction, for example.

Of course, you could always look at the battle against the acceptance of gay marriage that churches in the US are losing as a counter-example, but that could also be an example of the differences between societies where religion is more of an influential force vs. societies where religion is prevalent but not the controlling factor.

If this whole issue is anything, "simple" is not it.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 01:16 PM

And when you look cloesly at all three their texts all have statements about women being inferior in them or serving their husbands or the source of sin and temptation, theres no getting away from it and singling out jsut one of them is clearly wrong.

So, are we supposed to attack all three of them at once? Wouldn't that be a bit cumbersome?

OK, I'm, ahhh, going to level a criticism against Islam here. Similar criticisms can, ahhh, be leveled against other religions...of course...but this, ahhh, particular criticism is, ahhh, specifically against...

...ahhh, screw it.

Cleon

1st June 2012, 01:18 PM

So, are we supposed to attack all three of them at once? Wouldn't that be a bit cumbersome?

OK, I'm, ahhh, going to level a criticism against Islam here. Similar criticisms can, ahhh, be leveled against other religions...of course...but this, ahhh, particular criticism is, ahhh, specifically against...

...ahhh, screw it.

Indeed. Likewise, since we know that Black men, White men, and Hispanic men all commit rape, we should obviously just focus on criticizing Black men, because....

...ahhh, screw it.

baron

1st June 2012, 01:28 PM

Toontown

1st June 2012, 01:32 PM

Given the focus of this thread (violence against women), I have no doubt whatsoever that your paraphrase of that line (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/As_Good_as_It_Gets) is entirely intentional.

And, coming from you, I must say that I'm not surprised in the least.

Melvin's appraisal works better on God. Works perfect on God.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 01:34 PM

That has got to be one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

Yeah, he missed the mark badly on that one. But he got the zombie left act down pat.

Cleon

1st June 2012, 01:36 PM

That has got to be one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

Yeah, he missed the mark badly on that one. But he got the zombie left act down pat.

I'm sorry that it made your position look bad. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

crimresearch

1st June 2012, 01:39 PM

Yeah, he missed the mark badly on that one. But he got the zombie left act down pat.
So when others point it out, it is fail, but when you do it it's common sense... why?

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 01:41 PM

Quick, Toontown, work another paraphrase of a misogynistic movie quote into the conversation, and maybe no one will notice!

Toontown

1st June 2012, 01:51 PM

So when others point it out, it is fail, but when you do it it's common sense... why?

I have no idea what you're talking about. What "it"? What did I say "is fail" that someone pointed out?

Ahhh, screw it.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 01:53 PM

I'm sorry that it made your position look bad. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

You didn't even touch my position. You don't even know where my position is. My position is invisible to you. Your ideological conditioning doesn't allow you to see it. Oh, it's there all right. But that's just it's tail you're grabbing at.

crimresearch

1st June 2012, 01:53 PM

I have no idea what you're talking about. What "it"? What did I say "is fail" that someone pointed out?

Ahhh, screw it.
Nice tap dance. Do you have anything either correct or useful on the topic?

Dcdrac

1st June 2012, 01:55 PM

So, are we supposed to attack all three of them at once? Wouldn't that be a bit cumbersome?

OK, I'm, ahhh, going to level a criticism against Islam here. Similar criticisms can, ahhh, be leveled against other religions...of course...but this, ahhh, particular criticism is, ahhh, specifically against...

...ahhh, screw it.

No it is inaccurate to say just one religion is at fault they all have extremeists trying to push their agenda on the majority and yes you should be criticizing those extremsits of all the major religions.

Cleon

1st June 2012, 01:58 PM

Your ideological conditioning doesn't allow you to see it.

See, I know you're just trying to attack me and piss me off, but when you include lines like that, I just start giggling.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 02:00 PM

.
I usually add "crazed hate filled old" to "man", when thinking of the persons that assume god's role in society here, with their murders and violence, they do "in god's name".
(Apparently because god doesn't act quickly enough.)

What do you expect? He's old and decrepit. He would have tossed the acid if He could have gotten out of his rocking chair fast enough. But His followers are spry and well-trained.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 02:03 PM

Nice tap dance. Do you have anything either correct or useful on the topic?

On the topic of what? Do you have any explanation of what you were talking about? Do you even know?

Toontown

1st June 2012, 02:08 PM

No it is inaccurate to say just one religion is at fault they all have extremeists trying to push their agenda on the majority and yes you should be criticizing those extremsits of all the major religions.

See post #50. That was my first post in the thread before offending ANTPogo. I think that post satisfies your requirement to attack them in unison. It's generic. Hope you're happy now. If not, screw it. I tried. Really hard.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 02:12 PM

See post #50. That was my first post in the thread before offending ANTPogo.

Oh, right. That post.

The one that reads like the kind of post that talking heads discuss on CNN as the nation tries to find explanations in the aftermath.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 02:18 PM

Quick, Toontown, work another paraphrase of a misogynistic movie quote into the conversation, and maybe no one will notice!

I can do better than that. I can make up my own misogynistic quote.

"Leave it to a woman to find a way to be offended at me for taking the Nicholson monkey off her back and putting it on God's back." - Toontown

Toontown

1st June 2012, 02:22 PM

Oh, right. That post.

The one that reads like the kind of post that talking heads discuss on CNN as the nation tries to find explanations in the aftermath.

The aftermath of what? My religious-indignation-inspired murder? Or would it be my politically-inspired murder?

Hey, I didn't write the God books. I just interpret them in a revealing yet humourous manner.

Guybrush Threepwood

1st June 2012, 02:38 PM

.
The Paki has the religion's sanctions to justify his actions.

Are you aware that that's not far from equivalent to ****** in it's level of offensiveness in some countries?

(censored word is six letters, starts with 'n')

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 02:44 PM

The aftermath of what? My religious-indignation-inspired murder? Or would it be my politically-inspired murder?

That style of barely-coherent rant is usually not written by the victim.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 02:50 PM

That style of post is usually not written by the victim.

Oh. Well, as long as I'm not about to be murdered for blasphemy against God or zombie leftism, I'm cool.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 02:51 PM

Oh. Well, as long as I'm not about to be murdered for blasphemy against God or political correctness, I'm cool.

You have nothing to worry about. Laughable self-importance isn't a capital offense anywhere that I know of.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 02:57 PM

You have nothing to worry about. Laughable self-importance isn't a capital offense anywhere that I know of.

Thank Dog for that. I was beginning to worry that revealing the whole God-man tension thing as seen through my eyes might not have been such a good idea.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 02:58 PM

I was beginning to worry that revealing the whole God-man tension thing as seen through my eyes might not have been such a good idea.

No, it's still that.

baron

1st June 2012, 03:23 PM

No it is inaccurate to say just one religion is at fault they all have extremeists trying to push their agenda on the majority and yes you should be criticizing those extremsits of all the major religions.

I'm genuinely interested to hear how this thinking works.

Presumably you agree that different religions spawn different problems, so that the set of issues incumbent on Islam is not a perfect match for that of Buddhism or Quakerism, for example.

With that in mind, what do we do when we want to focus on a certain problem and examine its root cause? I'd suggest we go with the evidence and speak to the cause and circumstance, wherever that may lead. That seems a pretty basic principle which I can't see you disagreeing with, although I might be wrong.

Conversely, what approach should we take when we want to examine a certain religion and its impact? Obviously we would do the research within the bounds of the subject matter, that being the religion itself, and hopefully come to some conclusions. Again, let me know if you think otherwise.

So assuming you broadly agree so far, at what point does our scope suddenly expand to include all problems and all religions? At what point does the topic explosively lose focus and encompass anything that might be vaguely related, leaving us with a discussion option so broad that nothing can be usefully said about it?

Also, I'm interested in whether you apply this approach to other areas. For example, if someone's discussing the failures of a political party do you jump in and say forget about it, all parties have their problems so it's unfair to focus on just one? Do you do it in debates about governmental regimes, say, or militant bodies, sports teams, cars, fine wines, anything at all other than religion?

And even within the bounds of religion, if I may be so bold, I suggest you don't apply your criteria evenly. Because I'll bet you a coconut that if I go looking at the threads critical of Christianity or Buddhism or Mormonism I'm not going to see you making the same protestations that we should broaden our focus to include Islam.

AlBell

1st June 2012, 03:27 PM

Well, I'd just spent the last few days posting heavily in defense of Christianity and Christians in a couple of threads here. I was concerned that my reputation among the usual crowd here as an "Islam Apologist" might be diminished as a result, so I figured I had to do something to make up for it quick.
Congratulations. You have done so.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 03:31 PM

baron:

Don't worry about it. As long as you don't say anything bad about Islam or Muslims specifically, you'll be fine. Hasn't that been repeatedly made clear to you?

AlBell

1st June 2012, 03:36 PM

I'll never understand the urge that some theists have to come rushing in to attack Islam as if it is some vast monolithic organization with a well understood nefarious goal.

Christians, Buddhists, Shintoists, even nominally Atheist organizations can be just as bad, if not worse. All religions are nutty at the core, and all are ripe for the abuse of power and trust. But that doesn't mean that religion makes people evil. People use religion to justify their actions, bending and shaping it to suit their nefarious goals.

So why single out Islam? Because you don't think it's as 'progressive' and 'tolerant' as Christianity? About 30% of Americans would like to see the US become a repressive theocratic state, and many others would not oppose it. Bashing Islam without acknowledging the aims of fundamentalist Christians in your own country is not only hypercritical, it's also stupid - because you are playing right into their hands (unless that's what you want to happen?).

Riight. So pointing out that Islam is not the only religion followed by those who commit violence against women is being a 'cheerleader' for it? Did you not know that the vast majority of Muslims are against throwing acid into womens' faces? If it's also being done by Christians, what does this tell you about their real motivations? Religion is just a convenient excuse, not the reason.

The OP is not 'cheerleading' for Islam, just providing some balance and recognition of the facts. You could wipe Islam off the map tomorrow, and it wouldn't stop violence against women. Because it's not the cause.
Please demonstrate how big this US problem is by % population and same for Islamists. I call bs on a 30% value for the US.

Pakistan would make a good islamic example.

I and I suspect most here do agree Islam is not a direct cause.

fuelair

1st June 2012, 03:38 PM

I really don't give a flying crap what reason the things that do it do it for. But it would be entertaining to dip them into (Or be fast enough to pour over them just before they got close enough to throw the acid) a nice warm bath tub full of sodium hydroxide (while being sure the target of their throw was protected). Would be fun to watch the screaming as skin sloughed off and their fats turned to soap. For those who do not know, I am an educational philosopher (among other things). The educational parts, for the curious or students of education are these: 1) they learn beyond any doubt (and remember intensely for the rest of their lives that someone/ones felt they acted poorly and 2) they will most assuredly will never do such again. The name of this particular form of education we like to refer to as TE/Terminal Education due to the immediate and irrevocable graduation process.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 03:42 PM

It's almost like some people are offended that I had the temerity to point out that this is an issue that stretches far beyond being simply a "Muslim problem".

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 03:50 PM

Congratulations. You have done so.

I'd feel bad if I had to make you deal with the cognitive dissonance of having your blinkered prejudices challenged.

Well, more than once per thread, anyway.

AlBell

1st June 2012, 03:57 PM

I'd feel bad if I had to make you deal with the cognitive dissonance of having your blinkered prejudices challenged.

Well, more than once per thread, anyway.
What.Ever!

I Ratant

1st June 2012, 04:20 PM

What do you expect? He's old and decrepit. He would have tossed the acid if He could have gotten out of his rocking chair fast enough. But His followers are spry and well-trained.
.
But why can't they wait?
All those violent deaths due to religious problems wouldn't be necessary, if the murderers would only wait for the miscreants to go to their "final reward" which would occur.
I guess seeing the bad guy chopped up and crisped is food for the soul.

I Ratant

1st June 2012, 04:21 PM

Are you aware that that's not far from equivalent to ****** in it's level of offensiveness in some countries?

(censored word is six letters, starts with 'n')
.
Iraqi, Afghani....

Guybrush Threepwood

1st June 2012, 04:24 PM

.
Iraqi, Afghani....

Pakistani....
Not offensive

Paki
Offensive

Not hard.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 05:38 PM

.
But why can't they wait?
All those violent deaths due to religious problems wouldn't be necessary, if the murderers would only wait for the miscreants to go to their "final reward" which would occur.
I guess seeing the bad guy chopped up and crisped is food for the soul.

You're asking me?

All I know for sure is that the universe branches, every which way. In one or more of those branches, monkeys don't eat crispy soul food.

I Ratant

1st June 2012, 05:52 PM

Pakistani....
Not offensive

Paki
Offensive

Not hard.
.
OK.
Stone Age barbarian instead.

Toontown

1st June 2012, 06:04 PM

.
OK.
Stone Age barbarian instead.

You're going to piss off the cultural equality cops.

I Ratant

1st June 2012, 06:40 PM

KevinCanada

1st June 2012, 06:48 PM

Wait, did I say "Muslim country in the Middle East"? I meant to say Christian country in the Western Hemisphere (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18246717).

I'm sorry, my fingers must have slipped.

I would like to see numbers for muslims against non-muslims, If we are going to compare differences. It may paint a different picture. Rape statistics paints a very large picture in Sweden.

In my own experince. People blame Islam, but the blame is the end result of something else which has been taken out of context from mis communication (semantics) if you will or language barriers in the form of religious muslim communiticing with non religious people. East and West have different methods of thought and approaches to issues which only adds to the misunderstanding and blaming islam.

I'll run the numbers for sweden, with sources in a follow up post.

tyr_13

1st June 2012, 07:01 PM

Indeed. Likewise, since we know that Black men, White men, and Hispanic men all commit rape, we should obviously just focus on criticizing Black men, because....

...ahhh, screw it.

I'm sorry that it made your position look bad. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

It didn't make baron's position look bad.

How many black men use being black as reason and justification for rape and in fact are protected by black culture for their rapes? That doesn't sound at all like the problem of Islam 'supported' (for lack of a better word) violence against women.

It's almost like some people are offended that I had the temerity to point out that this is an issue that stretches far beyond being simply a "Muslim problem".

That may have been your goal, but the OP can easily be read as trying to lessen the criticism of the violence in the Muslim world.

I see a different tenor of discussion about this than I did for the Catholic church and child molestation.

While I tend to agree with both of you that this obviously isn't just a Muslim problem, many Muslim controlled areas/cultures have a problem with it with special causes and influences. I can't see where baron has been unreasonable about this.

EDIT: In short, dismissing that many Muslim countries have a special problem with such violence is as wrong as dismissing that other countries and cultures also have similar violence issues.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 07:21 PM

I would like to see numbers for muslims against non-muslims, If we are going to compare differences.

The BBC article in my OP notes that there are higher overall numbers of attacks in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh than in Colombia, but those countries also have higher overall populations than Colombia.

The article was drawing a comparison of rate per equivalent population, with the caveat that reported vs. unreported attacks can be a factor.

There's also the issue of the number of acid attacks on a year to year basis. In Malaysia, for instance, there were 45 acid attacks from January through October of last year, but only three in all of 2009, while in Bangladesh over 500 acid attacks per year were recorded before the government started efforts to combat it in 2002, resulting in a 15-20% decline in attacks per year since then (there were 84 attacks in Bangladesh last year, and 15 through April of this year), with the goal of stopping attacks completely by 2015.

A report by the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School about combating acid violence in Bangladesh, India, and Cambodia can be found here (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/cedaw_crc_contributions/AvonGlobalCenterforWomenandJustice.pdf). Warning: it has some pretty graphic images in it.

In my own experince. People blame Islam, but the blame is the end result of something else which has been taken out of context from mis communication (semantics) if you will or language barriers in the form of religious muslim communiticing with non religious people. East and West have different methods of thought and approaches to issues which only adds to the misunderstanding and blaming islam.

I'm under no illusions that my thread has changed anybody's mind here at JREF, no matter what their opinion was before I posted the OP.

Regarding me or regarding Islam.

ANTPogo

1st June 2012, 07:30 PM

That may have been your goal, but the OP can easily be read as trying to lessen the criticism of the violence in the Muslim world.

Yes, I know. That's something I've actually been anxious about since I first saw the BBC article and thought about posting it here, and agreed with baron about when he noted that my approach in the OP was doing the subject no favors. Are my efforts to point out via this thread that Islam and Muslims do not deserve all the blame directed at it actually serving to misdirect the blame that Islam and Muslims do deserve? I honestly don't know.

But since I started this thread in a public forum, I deserve to take the consequences of that in a public forum as well.

EDIT: In short, dismissing that many Muslim countries have a special problem with such violence is as wrong as dismissing that other countries and cultures also have similar violence issues.

I agree.

tyr_13

1st June 2012, 07:55 PM

Yes, I know. That's something I've actually been anxious about since I first saw the BBC article and thought about posting it here, and agreed with baron about when he noted that my approach in the OP was doing the subject no favors. Are my efforts to point out via this thread that Islam and Muslims do not deserve all the blame directed at it actually serving to misdirect the blame that Islam and Muslims do deserve? I honestly don't know.

But since I started this thread in a public forum, I deserve to take the consequences of that in a public forum as well.

I agree.

Well, look at it his way, even if you had made a thread calling out Columbia for it's violence against women and the caustic attack problem specifically with no mention of Islam at all, some people still would have chimed in with, 'oh but in Pakistan those dirty blahblahblatheringblah...' I was worried that my comment would be seen as defending that type too.

It's a tricky dance and we can't be expected to pull it off all the time.

KevinCanada

1st June 2012, 09:31 PM

I'm under no illusions that my thread has changed anybody's mind here at JREF, no matter what their opinion was before I posted the OP.
Regarding me or regarding Islam.

I agree this is likely true anyhow here are the numbers

Sweden Rape Statistics.
(Sweden is the only country we presently have for comparison I am aware of or I would show more countries for thoroughness)

Rape chart by country in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
(the rape numbers are accurate, the Muslim populations are estimations)

Sweden 53.2 per 100,000pop Muslim population approx 5%
United States 28.6 per 100,000 Muslim population approx 0.6%
Morocco 3.6 per 100,000 Muslim population approx 98.7%

On the surface it looks like, Islamic nations do a better job controlling rape. I only use Morocco as there is no data from other Muslim nations that are nearly 100% adherence.

Unfortunately these numbers lie and while accurate lack context. When we apply the new information the numbers change.

News Article I am clipping the numbers from
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543

- "In 2005, Swedish lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 percent of the convicted rapists were “born on foreign soil or from foreign parents."

Using 2005 Census and cross referencing to Muslim population density from the respective countries we find that 30.33 percent of immigrants are Muslim using the listed countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden

85% of 53.2 = 45.22 rapes per 100k

Therefore in Sweden
Sweden has a rape rate of 7.98 per 100k
Immigrants account for 45.22 rapes per 100k
Muslims account for 13.72 rapes per 100k of the immigrant population.

Muslims account for 5% of Sweden's population, but contribute to 25.79% of the rapes.

(allow +/- 2% for errors in numbers due to rounding)

KevinCanada

1st June 2012, 10:02 PM

To the Op:

When comparing internal numbers, I can understand much of the information being the same, or worse in non-Muslim countries in some situations as in the Acid attacks on women.

I do have to argue it is out of context of the issue at hand. As the rules in a top down structure. That being Western Law over it Citizens versus Islamic Law over it citizens. Plays by a different rule book when it comes to Muslim Versus non-Muslim situations.

The argument of lets blame Muslims comes from the latter form of interactions, not from a internal law point of view from within individual countries.
Furthermore rape information from Muslim dominated nations is hard to come by. I did find some info on turkey 98.6% Muslim.

They reported 1.4 per 100,000 rape rate.
Turkey accounted for roughly 1/9th (fast math, I m not re-running numbers for this) of the Sweden immigration Muslim population. If we take 11.11% out of the 13.72 rapes per 100k we get 1.52 rapes per 100k are from Turkey immigrants into Sweden

Now factor in if we assume the Turkish rape rates are the same in both countries 1.4 versus 1.52 per 100k. But Turkey immigrants only account for 11.11% of Muslim rapes in Sweden. This translates into a 900% increase of Rape for Muslims against others when they leave their homeland.

Personal opinion here people notice these things, then start looking to Islam asking why, then they start finding those Islamic verses in the Holy Book or Hadiths, about right hand possess, girls are war booty etc etc etc. Then they shout Islam. Evil..... They maybe misguided on the Laws and what it should be teaching. But they are just observing the end result.

LordofTruth

1st June 2012, 11:25 PM

So why single out Islam? Because you don't think it's as 'progressive' and 'tolerant' as Christianity? About 30% of Americans would like to see the US become a repressive theocratic state, and many others would not oppose it. Bashing Islam without acknowledging the aims of fundamentalist Christians in your own country is not only hypercritical, it's also stupid - because you are playing right into their hands (unless that's what you want to happen?).

If and when, gods forbid, the time comes to resist a theocratic takeover in America, then I hope those who do resist don't have to frame their arguments in terms of lots of other religions and cultures, where meaningful comparisons might not even exist, in order to make a valid point about the crazy Christianists.

Americans - is that time now, or do you see it coming soon? I'll do what little I can if it is. I know a few Americans, and they don't seem worried about it so I don't give it much thought. I'm very interested though.

WildCat

2nd June 2012, 06:51 AM

.
That "honor violence" has to go to the scrap heap also, to get out of the Stone Age.
It's a cultural situation older than the religion.
We jail people that do that "honor" thing to others.
Hey, Pakistan made it illegal to throw acid on a woman way back in in 2010. They don't actually enforce that law yet, but maybe someday they will!

Dcdrac

2nd June 2012, 06:59 AM

If and when, gods forbid, the time comes to resist a theocratic takeover in America, then I hope those who do resist don't have to frame their arguments in terms of lots of other religions and cultures, where meaningful comparisons might not even exist, in order to make a valid point about the crazy Christianists.

Americans - is that time now, or do you see it coming soon? I'll do what little I can if it is. I know a few Americans, and they don't seem worried about it so I don't give it much thought. I'm very interested though.

I will take on extreme theocrats whatever their religion , do not worry about that

fuelair

2nd June 2012, 07:20 AM

I had an epiphany couple days ago.
Had to watch an "awful" movie...
Full of blacks talking to each other using "that" word, and just sounding awful... to my white bread ears, as the person I was viewing the movie with told me. :)
When I considered my reaction, I compared that flick to the typical white bread comedy I grew up with... and found it was really no different.
Other than being aimed at the black community, the silliness in the movie duplicated the silliness in any of the classic comedies, from Buster Keaton on.
She liked it, had a good time watching it.
I decided I could watch those without feeling the "white man's burden" of cultural superiority, in the future.
Just people being people.

This is a point I have been making re:certain old tv shows from the 50s(and on) for a very long time. All title maids are smarter than their employers but may have a friend who is dumber than a post. Except for a small group in the early 50's (Burns and Allen and Betty White) all sitcom husbands are dumber than their wives but the wives sometimes let them shine or the maid solves/fixes the problem.

Teenagers alway mess up BUT wind up realizing Dad/Mom is right (occasionally Granpa or another relative is right).

It's all canned stories - who plays in them and how well they play in them makes for longevity or fast death.

AND in the special class of sitcoms and their movie equivs which I like to call "The trickster tricked" ( with any Lucille Ball or Gale Storm show an exemplary demonstration) the primary plot line is pretty much always A needs to trick B to get something/get to do some thing (Or the reverse of either) and sets up the trick and B finds out and tricks A . Occasionally there may be a double reverse, but not most of the time.

ANTPogo

2nd June 2012, 08:27 AM

News Article I am clipping the numbers from
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543

That's not a news article, that's a BNP press release.

I'm not making an exaggeration or a smear...the "article" in question is literally a statement written and released by the racist, fascist British National Party (http://web.archive.org/web/20100108103329/http://bnp.org.uk/2009/09/muslim-rape-epidemic-puts-sweden-at-top-of-euro-rape-statistics/), which one of LiveLeak's users cut-and-pasted into a submission to that site.

They didn't even read the actual Daphne II study in question (which can be found here (www.cwasu.org/filedown.asp?file=different_systems_03_web(2).pdf) , and which is solely about measuring attrition, the process by which rape cases fail to proceed through the justice system), they simply copied what they found at this article from The Local (http://www.thelocal.se/19102/20090427/) and added stuff about Muslims.

You can tell because the BNP release said "According to the report, the Swedish rape rate 'cannot be explained purely by an increased tendency to report rapes and other more minor sexual offences.'", but that's not a sentence from the report, indicated by their use of quotation marks, but is instead something concluded by the author of the article in the Local (which goes entirely uncited by the BNP release, despite the verbatim quotation from it).

The actual report itself says "Whilst it has been argued that a range of methodological, legal and substantive factors maximise the number of rapes registered in Sweden compared to many other EU countries, especially when viewed annually (von Hofer, 2000), it is an open question whether these are sufficient to explain the disparity between reporting in Sweden and all other European countries," which is a lot less definitive.

And in addition to the BNP apparently having no problem with copying quotes from The Local and pretending they're actually from the report, the BNP also has no problem ignoring what else the article they quote from has to say about the report, because that doesn't fit with the anti-Muslim spin they're trying to put on the report: "The high incidence of rape in Sweden has a strong connection to nightlife and partying, specifically after-club parties in private homes. Early sexual debuts, high alcohol consumption, 'free sexuality' and the 'right to say no' quite simply results in more rapes, the study concludes."

- "In 2005, Swedish lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 percent of the convicted rapists were “born on foreign soil or from foreign parents."[B]

As far as I can tell, this claim comes from this news opinion item (http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/en-riktig-valdtaktsman) (which is also referenced at a lot of the same websites which reposted the BNP release itself), in which it's reported that Ann-Christine Hjelm looked at criminal proceedings in the Swedish Court of Appeals, and found that of the 27 rape convicts whose appeals court cases she examined, 85% were foreign born or had parents who were foreign born.

Though I will note that if the members of the Muslim immigrant community in Sweden are responsible for only 25.79% of the reported rapes, but that 85% of convicted rapists are from that Muslim immigrant community, that doesn't tell me that there's a problem with Muslim rapists in Sweden.

That tells me that there's a problem with white, native-born Swedes getting away scot-free with rape, since (using your numbers) they're responsible for 74.21% of the reported rapes, but make up only 15% of those convicted for rape.

And indeed, the Daphne II study notes that of the 100 sequentially-selected rape reports they tracked through attrition, conviction was far more likely in cases where the perpetrators "came from a minority background, were unemployed and had consumed alcohol".

At any rate, because of this, I wouldn't trust any numbers or information taken from the BNP or related sites. At most, I'd try to locate the actual reports and studies they reference (if any), and use the numbers straight off of there, to minimize bias as much as possible towards either side of the debate.

Caper

2nd June 2012, 08:55 AM

Saying there was a "corrosive substance attack" just doesn't have that same ring to it, though.

Either does "basic attack".... (whats the word or term I'm looking for to describe a "basic attack"... that really isn't basic (non complicated) at all.)

I worked in a lab and worked with strong acids and strong bases... but I don't know... I'm sure there is stronger of both.

I got a lot of strong acids on my clothes and skin... never really large quantities... but when I'm adding 5mls of sulfuric acid to 300 samples... I'd get careless... and many times I was rushing and wouldn't wear gloves.... Over 3 years... I lost a couple of finger nails..... get the odd drop that hurts like hell. on the skin.. leaves a mark.... but you wash it off and go back to what I was doing.

One time a girl I worked with was dispensing nitric acid... or maybe sulfuric and I think maybe 50mls spilled down her arm somehow... it wet her bracelet and the acid that came off that back onto her arm... did some damage as well..... There was some gross damage done to that arm.

Anyway... I always found the strong bases I worked with, not near as bad as the strong acids... maybe they work a different way? Maybe someone can explain? I would get some on my fingers and my fingers would get right slippery... I was told it was because the skin was starting "melt" (lack of a better word)..... but it never really hurt... after washing it off... the skin would just turn kinda white and hard... then die.... but it would never really burn like it did with an acid. Is there a reason for this? Was the base just not as far on the other side of the pH scale as the acid was? I don't know..... I just was left with the impression that a strong base would act as fast as a strong acid... thus why it may not be used in attacks... maybe I'm wrong.

baron

2nd June 2012, 09:15 AM

I must say I'd struggle to make a clear connection with Islam in those figures (CWASU report). I'm not saying such a connection doesn't exist but it's not obvious and because it wasn't the subject of the report I'm not sure it can, or should be, extrapolated.

Though I will note that if the members of the Muslim immigrant community in Sweden are responsible for only 25.79% of the reported rapes, but that 85% of convicted rapists are from that Muslim immigrant community, that doesn't tell me that there's a problem with Muslim rapists in Sweden.

That tells me that there's a problem with white, native-born Swedes getting away scot-free with rape, since (using your numbers) they're responsible for 74.21% of the reported rapes, but make up only 15% of those convicted for rape.

Possibly but not necessarily, it would depend on the nature of the crime. If men from one ethnic group tend to commit rape with partners or in social situations then proving guilt would be vastly more difficult than for a group that went out attacking strangers on the street. Whether this is the case is again not clear from the report.

I Ratant

2nd June 2012, 09:17 AM

Hey, Pakistan made it illegal to throw acid on a woman way back in in 2010. They don't actually enforce that law yet, but maybe someday they will!
.
The only way to change a cultural/religious offense is to prosecute those offenses.
Making them illegal is only the start. Once the population recognizes how awful the offense is, then it will diminish, but that's a looooooooooong time in the future of those Stone Age countries.
I was appalled to see all the female students at Pakistan's university in burquas.
All of them!
That could only be a self-defense measure against the surety of a violent attack by some Stone Age male, offended by the exposure of any part of a woman in public.

I Ratant

2nd June 2012, 09:23 AM

This is a point I have been making re:certain old tv shows from the 50s(and on) for a very long time. All title maids are smarter than their employers but may have a friend who is dumber than a post. Except for a small group in the early 50's (Burns and Allen and Betty White) all sitcom husbands are dumber than their wives but the wives sometimes let them shine or the maid solves/fixes the problem.

Teenagers alway mess up BUT wind up realizing Dad/Mom is right (occasionally Granpa or another relative is right).

It's all canned stories - who plays in them and how well they play in them makes for longevity or fast death.

AND in the special class of sitcoms and their movie equivs which I like to call "The trickster tricked" ( with any Lucille Ball or Gale Storm show an exemplary demonstration) the primary plot line is pretty much always A needs to trick B to get something/get to do some thing (Or the reverse of either) and sets up the trick and B finds out and tricks A . Occasionally there may be a double reverse, but not most of the time.
.
Oh yeah, Lucy's writers wrote the Bible for all sit-coms since.
Essentially no one learns from experience and doesn't do the funny thing anymore.
I mention this to the nerds in love with Sheldon on TBBT. They just can't get it. And neither will he, it's not in the script. :)
What struck me about the movie I was watching was my attitude towards the characters changed while I was watching.. instead of pitying the display of the culture, I accepted it as normal, which it is, for the culture, and it was well done. "Friday After Next" was the movie.
Just another Lucy plot, but with black actors in a black culture.

ANTPogo

2nd June 2012, 09:28 AM

Possibly but not necessarily, it would depend on the nature of the crime. If men from one ethnic group tend to commit rape with partners or in social situations then proving guilt would be vastly more difficult than for a group that went out attacking strangers on the street. Whether this is the case is again not clear from the report.

That's why any conclusion about the effect on rape statistics by the presence of immigrant communities (Muslim or not) should preferably be drawn from a study (or studies) that specifically sets out to examine and measure those sorts of things, with very clear definitions.

Ad hoc calculations based on numbers drawn from disparate sources that aren't necessarily measuring the same thing, and may not even have been gathered with any kind of methodological rigor, don't actually tell us anything useful about the problem or its causes.

That's the point I was trying to make with my own calculation, anyway.

ANTPogo

2nd June 2012, 09:34 AM

.
The only way to change a cultural/religious offense is to prosecute those offenses.
Making them illegal is only the start. Once the population recognizes how awful the offense is, then it will diminish, but that's a looooooooooong time in the future of those Stone Age countries.

Bangladesh is certainly doing a lot better since they instituted a change in their law back in 2002. They're hoping to end the problem by just 2015 (http://www.unfpa.org/public/site/global/lang/en/pid/3917).

baron

2nd June 2012, 09:45 AM

Is it just me or have they got the gender suspect %s wrong in almost all the tables?

ANTPogo

2nd June 2012, 09:50 AM

Is it just me or have they got the gender suspect %s wrong in almost all the tables?

No, I noticed that too.

It doesn't appear to be wrong so much as just backwards - the numbers in the rows for "Male" and "Female" under the Suspect column just need to be swapped with each other, in each table.

fuelair

2nd June 2012, 10:35 AM

This is a combination response to Caper and sort of more for why it's a bad thing:
1. Concentrated acids and bases need some water to start dissociating (which is when they can "eat" stuff). Personally observed this when I got a couple of drops on my palm (40+ years ago)-18M H2SO4 - and observed that it was neither burning or hurting, just sitting there. That did not stop me from moving swifty to the nearest sink and flushing it off - and that's when the burning (temporary and just a trace of redness) started. Had it been 5 or 6 molar I would likely have needed some medical treatment. Had it been that and I was nowhere I could get washed off rapidly I may well have needed a lot of medical activity. This is the situation for thrown acid victims - it is usually done where there is difficulty getting it washed off quickly.

2. Acids generally require 2 or three minutes of washing and a bit more if eyes are involved. Bases are different. they do their damage under the outer layers with a particular love for your fats/fatty tissues which, in essence, they start converting to soap. Because, once diluted just enough to do so, they start moving under the surface, you need to wash them more quickly and longer - 15 to18 minutes or so depending on amount and strength.

3. When handling them wear gloves and goggles even if they are low concentration (Molarity or Molality or Normality for fellow chemists)

Note: I write on a lot of topics and some appear/are completely unrelated so just to pass on why I may be so qualified - since occasionally questions come up: I have an M.L.S (G. Peabody), BS (Phys Sci minor and Bio major) G. Peabody. Half+ of an MBA (got bored) random physics,bio,geology,chem+ (USF and other FL), then, on my own mostly, Television /film production/history, History of random topics(censorship/prostitution/abnormal psych) SF and Fantasy lit(and other media).....I will happily discuss those and other topics with most anyone and have a great time doing it.

This is a reasonable, but not complete list.......

Mycroft

2nd June 2012, 10:46 AM

No it is inaccurate to say just one religion is at fault they all have extremeists trying to push their agenda on the majority and yes you should be criticizing those extremsits of all the major religions.

This is just silly. Every religion? Where are the Amish extremists trying to push their agenda on me? How would a Shinto extremists even go about trying?

This is misguided PC nonsense. Just as there are huge differences within the major religions, there are also huge differences between religions. There is nothing wrong with discussing these differences or even discussing a particular religion independently of other religions. The important issue is to be both factual and contextual when you do it.

I will take on extreme theocrats whatever their religion , do not worry about that

The point is that if and when you do, you shouldn't feel the need to make up false equivalencies in order to conform to some false PC requirement.

Mycroft

2nd June 2012, 11:09 AM

I was hoping you'd post here, because I really value your opinion on things like this!

Anyway, I don't know that it adds extra barriers, so much as different barriers. Religion, for both good and ill, acts as a cohesive social and moral force (in that it shapes the morals of a society, not that it necessarily is "moral" in the sense of "good").

As you point out, it can be incredibly difficult to get religion in a society to change direction, but if you can, it will then make propagating moral changes within that society a lot easier. This is especially true in places with a much more coherent religious community. Not to mention the fact that it's easier to fight against conservatism and traditionalism when you're making only a few changes to society, rather than coming in and trying to make massively sweeping reforms to everything at once.

Take the example of the SIS in Malaysia, whose website I linked above. They find it much easier to try and change societal attitudes towards women and equality by couching those changes within a framework of Muslim religious faith, because it would be a lot harder to get Muslim society to accept gender equality if it's presented as something that's mutually exclusive with Islam. Because if you tell a highly religious society that you can either be modern and egalitarian but have to abandon your religious identity, or you can hold on to your religious identity but will have to reject any notion of women's equality, you're unlikely to get people flocking to the first choice. Since the abandonment of Muslim religious and cultural identity is associated with Western imperialism and cultural displacement, if you force that kind of either/or choice on people, they're most likely going to make the snap-choice to stick with their cultural and religious identity, even if they're unhappy with some of the practices of that culture and religion and would otherwise favor the particular and specific changes being offered by the non-Muslim culture.

By removing that false dichotomy, by saying you can be both devoutly Muslim and support gender equality, SIS and groups like them hope to make the acceptance of things like full equality for women easier to accomplish in Muslim states and communities. "This isn't an attempt to discard and replace your culture and your religion," they're saying, "because these things are a part of your culture and your religion, and therefore accepting them isn't any kind of 'surrender' to the imperialist West in some kind of Great Clash of Civilizations."

This has basically been the position of Muslim modernizers since the 19th Century, pioneered by the likes of al-Afghani and Abduh.

So this in a nutshell is why it's not a good idea to offer uninformed blanket criticisms of Islam. It's not merely bigoted, but it works against efforts to reform in parts of the world where Islam can be leveraged as an agent of change.

EDIT: And, regarding this issue in Colombia, the lack of a coherent religious response to this can make it more difficult to combat. A campaign saying "Macho men don't hurt women. People who hurt women are cowardly pussies" without any kind of moral social force like the Church behind it can easily result in men simply responding, "Oh yeah? Who says?", with the result that nothing actually ends up changing. Look at the way the anti-drug campaign (especially the anti-marijuana campaign) in the US has failed to gain traction, for example.

Of course, you could always look at the battle against the acceptance of gay marriage that churches in the US are losing as a counter-example, but that could also be an example of the differences between societies where religion is more of an influential force vs. societies where religion is prevalent but not the controlling factor.

If this whole issue is anything, "simple" is not it.

Do you think it's fair to say that perhaps the hierarchical structure of Catholicism is advantageous in this way? If the issue is ending a particular type of violence against women you could get the help of the Vatican which would bring on local religious leaders. By contrast Islam is different traditions and schools of thought without a centralized authority.

JJM 777

2nd June 2012, 11:16 AM

did I say "Muslim country in the Middle East"? I meant to say Christian country
In Middle East it might be common that religious honour is part of the honour / revenge attacks.

I doubt that religion is a factor in these attacks in Colombia.

I Ratant

2nd June 2012, 11:35 AM

Bangladesh is certainly doing a lot better since they instituted a change in their law back in 2002. They're hoping to end the problem by just 2015 (http://www.unfpa.org/public/site/global/lang/en/pid/3917).
.
If the secular government can take away the powers of the religious to end lives over religious problems, there's hope.
If someone offends in a religious situation, there's excommunication.
If the offender continues to offend, then get a restraining order.
Other than that, let the spiritual world be separate from our real world.

rwguinn

2nd June 2012, 01:14 PM

ANTPogo

2nd June 2012, 02:36 PM

All the statistics thrown around on rape in various cultures are a wonderful thing--it means that somebody is looking at the situation.
They are also meaningless.
When reporting a rape exposes the raped (especially if female) to a potential death sentence by stoning, just how accurate can the statistics be?

While that is certainly a valid concern when discussing rape statistics for someplace like Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure that's not a factor in the discussion of rape statistics in Sweden.

rwguinn

2nd June 2012, 02:41 PM

While that is certainly a valid concern when discussing rape statistics for someplace like Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure that's not a factor in the discussion of rape statistics in Sweden.
True enough.
but comparing them back to the base culture/religion is also meaningless. The Muslims and people of Middle-Eastern culture residing in Sweden LEFT their places of origin for a reason, whatever it may be.
Making assumptions about Islam or even ME culture from the actions of Swedes of that ancestry is, like, not a valid assumption at all...

LordofTruth

2nd June 2012, 03:36 PM

The best analogy for the way I think about it, and I'm not saying it's a good analogy (although I think it's pretty neat), or that my thinking's particularly accurate, is along the lines of:

If the story of a true crime, such as an acid attack or rape, was written as a book, how much would the religion feature in order to tell the complete story? Rightly or wrongly, in a lot of cases of 'honor' attacks or rapes commited by muslims, I suspect that the religion would occupy a good chapter or two, whether it was doctrinal islam or a sense of muslim identity on the part of the attacker, which for whatever reason they thought justified or neccessitated it. Other considerations would be tangled up in this, and perhaps more important than the religion, but the story wouldn't be complete without this discussion of islam in the life of the attacker.

In the case of the Columbian acid attacks, I'm not sure Catholisism or Christianity would warrant much more than a couple of paragraphs. The empahsis there would be on other things, such as the macho culture.

I've been through (secret) phases as a bit of a true crime fan (come on, admit it, you have too), and so those who (secretly or otherwise) have read some will know that a lot of true crime books tend to focus on the life and psychology of the criminals, and how all these imputs lead to the crimes, rather than the crime itself, which often only takes up a few pages.