Moral and legal questions on belting

Kaja

curious So will you help her? For example emigrate. But there is country where womans can not travel without permition of her men. Will you help her against her culture? Will you help her go to normal country when nobody wants to cit her privats?

curious

Kaja
No I will not.
And the reason is not because I support genital mutulation but because life is not black or white as you want to believe.
There are different princioles here in place which collide with each other.
How you respond depends on what you value as most important.
For you it is helping that woman. For me the right of a society to establish their own rules is more important because I see the conflicts and wars that result from interference and unfortunate as this is for the individual, I believe for people with different beliefs and values to live alongside each other peacefully non-interference is more important

curious

Milord
Have you ever considered the opposite perspective?
Just let us assume for a moment that Trump wins the election and becomes president again. And he then starts using the influence of the US to outlaw any kind of abortion in Europe. To make Europe accept death penalty again. Etc.
Would you not say: "Hey, if you guys in the U.S. want it that way, your problem. But leave us here in Europe alone with your ideology."?
If you claim the right to interfere in other peoples affairs you should better be prepared to accept it when they claim exactly the same right and start interfering in your affairs.

Milord

curious

No, because this ideology is wrong, and will never be applied in Europe. We have a very strong culture of freedom and human rights. It will never works.
But in case I will fight. Not because it is from USA, but because its wrong.
But this is not the point. Having the power to enforce ideologies doesn't make them right.
It has nothing to do with force, but with justice. A concept alien to you I see

Kaja

curious You have one big mistake in your opinion. You forget that drug smuggler wanted to do it. It is job with risk. But girl who will be infibulate, marriage for man she doesnt want or even kill in name of her familly never choose it.
Nobody voluntarily live in country where he can be persecuted for gender, sexual orientation, nation or confession. They were bored there, they can not easilly move. So your idea is totally stupid.

You know storry about Jesus and Pilatus, no? You are the same. You are even worse!

Spork

Kaja Nobody voluntarily live in country where he can be persecuted for gender, sexual orientation, nation or confession.

Plenty of people actively try to make their country that way, and then are surprised when they end up on the receiving end of it. Trump had very close to a majority of vote among white women, many of whom are now surprised when they're not able to get reproductive healthcare. Similarly, a lot of people who own second homes in Spain voted for Brexit. The "leopards eating people's faces party" is a realistic depiction of politics.

curious

Kaja They were bored there, they can not easilly move. So your idea is totally stupid.

Then they must change their society. You were born into your society and have to live by the rules. You can change your own society. Go start a revolution, found a party, get elected and make better laws. Whatever floats your boat. Same applies to every society.

Spork

Milord We have a very strong culture of freedom and human rights. It will never works.

Yes, so strong that Germany now has to consider outlawing a political party that's opposed to human rights, just in case too may people end up voting for them.

Kaja

curious So you agree with it. There is no third way. If you dont fight with evil - you are part of it.

Milord

Spork I don't know the fact. I'm unable to answer

Angelina

Milord As for being your house… well it depends a lot from country to country. In Italy you can’t send your child away until he is independent. In Italy familiar solidarity is a very strong value, and enforced socially and by law

There are similar laws in Germany and I would let my child live with me for as long as he wants anyway, but I also emphasize that I want my child to respect the fact that we have rules that everyone follows, even if for the children The rule is no more smartphones after 10pm, then you have to hand them over, I just expect that

Milord As for the rest, I really can’t understand where is the issue.

There isn't one, I just want to give a few of my thoughts to the other users to read and think about, I've already read the little argument between you and @curious on my smartphone and now for both of you. I always thought the forum was about exchanging opinions and not about a competition to see who has the better moral opinion. It is certainly always right to discuss the legal aspects, but morals are always individual

Milord I can’t understand also the idea that only court ruling determine if something is right or wrong. Between all, why you @angelina cared to keep it secret so much if it’s just an eventuality that it’s illegal?

For the same reason why I wouldn't talk about vaginal herpes if I had it, there are topics that it's better to try to hide, also because of your own reputation. I would have hidden it even if it was a legal method because then it would be embarrassing in front of many others, you know "your father doesn't allow you to masturbate?" bullying and stuff

Milord You doubt that is abusive?

I don't do that and please don't assume that. I wrote that I assume that it is abuse and therefore illegal, but that is my opinion, what is legal and what is not is always decided by a court in the end

Ines but I think that to compare a cellular phone with wear a chastity belt is a caricature, you can not compare the complexity and conditions of one with the other.

I didn't compare it. My question with the daughter and the smartphone was a question in itself to clarify what can be described as abuse, so where are the limits for whom?

Spork just in case too may people end up voting for them.

I didn't really want to get political, but the rise of extremists is usually due to the weaknesses of those in power, something we see in many countries. I've been talking about this for years and now we're seeing the consequences of incompetent politics

Kaja @curious you are the most disgusting person I ever met. I feel shame because Im on the same forum like you.

Please don't insult each other, it's so difficult????

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to another 95 posts, all of which would actually be worth an answer, but please remain polite to each other, some of what is written here is enormously damaging to a good climate, everyone should feel welcome here and be allowed to freely express their opinions

kamalawillwintheelection

Spork Human rights are nonsence.

curious

Milord
He is right. Germany is unfortinately taking a right wing turn at the moment.
But that is not the point. It does not matter if it would work or not.
The question is:
As you claim for yourself the right to decide that your rules must be universally be applied all over the world, will you grant the same right you have claimed for yourself to everyone else?
Will you do it even if that means Taliban then can claim the right to make their rules apply to Italy?

curious

Kaja
You do not see that the issue is more complex than your black and white view of the world.

Ever read Immanuel Kant? Does categorical imperative mean something to you?

Kaja

@curious you are the most disgusting person I ever met. I feel shame because Im on the same forum like you. There is not bigger perverted than your mind. You are in my eys worse than father of Angelina. I dont have words for you...

youdontknowme

Kaja I would not go that far. One is only stating opinions, the other has actively oppressed an innocent girl.

Kaja

youdontknowme But her father (migh be) can have some morality inside. Curious not.

Kaja

curious There is different. Big different. One side has morality and the second not.

Milord

curious As you claim for yourself the right to decide that your rules must be universally be applied all over the world, will you grant the same right you have claimed for yourself to everyone else?
Will you do it even if that means Taliban then can claim the right to make

Again, do not go all the time back on the same point. Universal principles are this, universal. It means, shared between most part of humanity
There is nowhere in any declaration of rights a limiting clause.
It's not Milord principles. But I'm tired, and I feel I'm losing my time with you.

So for today I have enough. You won for exaustion, happy?

Anyway in this forum not consensual and minor age is prohibited. Stick with it

Spork

Kaja There is different. Big different. One side has morality and the second not.

Yes, and both sides think they're the ones with the morals. And, whilst I agree with you personally on this, one must also be aware that there aren't many successful attempts at imposing morality upon other cultures. The west wasn't exactly successful at bringing women's rights to Iraq and Afghanistan. The most successful ways we have of improving the conditions for everyone in other countries is providing easy access to contraceptives, providing basic education to women, and encouraging the kind of comedy and humour that weakens authority. Telling people they're evil, invading their countries, and imposing morality by force doesn't have a great track record.

curious

Kaja
Bullshit. You just see your perspective.
For a Taliban the way you live with free sex, with equal rights for women, etc is the exact opposite of moral behaviour.
You are so self possessed of your moral that you not even see that other people have a right to disagree. For you everyone who does not share your values is a bad person.
Well, surprise, there are a few billion people on this planet who are very much opposed to gender equality or your women's rights ideology. If you do not respect their ways, you have no right to ask that they respect yours

Milord

curious
Kant, the one that talked about moral as the base of universal law

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

A strange choise

curious

Milord Universal principles are this, universal. It means, shared between most part of humanity

I told you time and again that there is no such thing as universal principes.
As @Spork so rightly has pointed out, what you call 'universal principles' are only universal in your limited western-cntric perspective but billions of people do not believe in what you claim to be universal.

pestulens

Spork The west wasn't exactly successful at bringing women's rights to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have been mostly staying out of this discussion since I concluded that it wouldn't go anywhere but I wanted to make a point on this specific argument. The wast never made a serious attempt to impose Western views of women's rights on Afghanistan. Women's rights were better under the Western-backed Afgan government than they are under the Taliban because the majority of Afghans have more liberal views of women's rights than the Taliban do and the Taliban's abominable view of women's rights was used in propaganda to keep the Western public on board with the war, but there was never a serious attempt to shift the view of women's rights of the majority of Afghans towards a western one.
I am not saying I think we would have succeeded if we had made a serious and sincere attempt to do so. What I am saying is that it is not a good example of the point you are making.to site the failure of a project that never existed.

Iraqu is more complicated, and I admit I don't know as much about the women's rights situation there but I have no reason to believe the Western occupation ever made a sincere effort to westernize the view of women's rights in that conflict either. Feel free to correct me if you can find one.

curious By giving yourself the right to apply your moral standards to e.g. Afghanistan, you must be ready to accept that they apply their moral standards to your country.

Leaving aside the part about Kant, what do you mean by "apply your moral standards"? All anyone has done here is say they are bad on an internet board and as much as I disagree with them, I am fine with those I condemn doing that to me.

Kaja

Spork I agree with it. War (violence) it is the last possibility.

Kaja

curious They can disagree. But it is the different. I dont denny anybody do what they want (be circumcised, go to church, dont eat pork or cows, wear burka, have sex, ...).
But nobody has right to force others. And taliban force womens to wear burkas or not go to secondary school. For me they CAN wear what they want, they CAN or CAN not go to secondary schools, ... - like they want and how how their mans want. RIght?

Spork

Milord "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

The problem with that is a lot of religious people would very much like their religion to become universal law.

curious

Milord
Not at all.
Because it means not that there IS a universal law but that whenever you act in a way, you should only do so if you want that everyone can invoke that right.
By giving yourself the right to apply your moral standards to e.g. Afghanistan, you must be ready to accept that they apply their moral standards to your country. That is what Kant meant.
You cannot claim this right for yourself but deny it for everyone you don't agree with.

« Previous Page Next Page »