Woman Beaten For Not Moving To The Back Of The Bus

[germanos]

I actually meant:

GODWIN !!!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yay freedom of speech. Of course you are allowed, and I am allowed to state that youre overreacting, over focusing on this incident.

Certainly. A person can say (mostly) whatever they like, but that right does not equate to a correctness in the statements made.

You argued that they are allowed to have their culture in response to a statement that gender segregation was improper. What I was pointing out is that you can't refute what is to be considered (im)proper by what is (dis)allowed. If you were to assume that what is (dis)allowed is necessarily to be viewed as (im)proper, then by admitting that Verto's statement was allowed, you would have to say it was proper as well. I agree with Verto's assessment of gender segregation in this case, but even I don't think his statement was proper.

[Az]

GODWIN !!!

here's a cookie.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Like Bhutto? Nah, Pakistan is hardly a Muslim country....

who said I had a problem with Pakistan or Bangladesh or Indonesia? I was saying what I want from mulsim countries, not bashing them all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson


Certainly. A person can say (mostly) whatever they like, but that right does not equate to a correctness in the statements made.

You argued that they are allowed to have their culture in response to a statement that gender segregation was improper. What I was pointing out is that you can't refute what is to be considered (im)proper by what is (dis)allowed. If you were to assume that what is (dis)allowed is necessarily to be viewed as (im)proper, then by admitting that Verto's statement was allowed, you would have to say it was proper as well. I agree with Verto's assessment of gender segregation in this case, but even I don't think his statement was proper.

Improper and incorrect are not the same thing. I think Reform Jews who leave out half of the traditional Jewish service are wrong. If I said they were "improper", even though all involved do so voluntarily, it would imply a certain level of intolerance.

I think that a world where all the religious traditions that hold gender segregated prayer are gone would be a lesser world, without an important part of its diverse history and heritage. Ive been at gender segregated weddings, and I find them a different cultural experience than gender integrated ones. Ive never been to a Curves gym, but I can accept it serves a need.

I find that judging all diverse cultures, which people participate in voluntarily, with harsh terms, is an intolerant style I dont much like. Whether that makes it improper, or is the same as some other posters feelings about the buses, is a jesuitical/talmudic game i dont have the patience for right now.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Aeson


Certainly. A person can say (mostly) whatever they like, but that right does not equate to a correctness in the statements made.

You argued that they are allowed to have their culture in response to a statement that gender segregation was improper. What I was pointing out is that you can't refute what is to be considered (im)proper by what is (dis)allowed. If you were to assume that what is (dis)allowed is necessarily to be viewed as (im)proper, then by admitting that Verto's statement was allowed, you would have to say it was proper as well. I agree with Verto's assessment of gender segregation in this case, but even I don't think his statement was proper.

I think the argument is that a private bus company is free to stipulate whatever seating code it likes, the objecting to which is solely the domain of its paying customers.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Improper and incorrect are not the same thing.

Of course not.

Your insinuation that I equated "improper" and "incorrect" is unfounded. I said a statement is not necessarily correct even though it is allowed. Then I went on to show how you incorrectly equated "improper" and "[dis]allowed" in your response to Verto. Just as here I am showing how you incorrectly interpreted my statement.

I think Reform Jews who leave out half of the traditional Jewish service are wrong. If I said they were "improper", even though all involved do so voluntarily, it would imply a certain level of intolerance.

"Wrong" can be just as intolerant a term as "improper". In my own views on the practice of gender segregation, the terms could be used interchangeably. If you look up the definitions of both, you will see a lot of similarity between various uses of each. (Interestingly enough my own reasoning to support my view of gender segregation in generals is that is that systematic segregation has a tendancy to lead towards intolerance. I can see times where gender segregation has a utilitarian purpose that overrides that concern, but no time where gender segregation in a derogatory nature is appropriate. "Back of the bus" has a rather clear derogatory implication to me. "Seperate but equal" is almost never what it says.)

"Intolerant" itself carries a negative connotation, an implication that the actions/views deemed "intolerant" are wrong or improper.

I agree that condemning illustrates a form of intolerance. But I can condemn an idea or action without condemning the person. Intolerance directed towards an idea or action deemed improper is perfectly acceptable. (Though the reasoning to support it may or may not fly with others.) It's when intolerance is directed towards a person, and especially when it's directed at a group, that it becomes a problem.

I think that a world where all the religious traditions that hold gender segregated prayer are gone would be a lesser world, without an important part of its diverse history and heritage. Ive been at gender segregated weddings, and I find them a different cultural experience than gender integrated ones. Ive never been to a Curves gym, but I can accept it serves a need.

As you imply there may be a utilitarian purpose behind gender segregated gyms. I don't know if there is or not in the case of Curves. In any case, I would strongly suspect that Curves is not operating on cultural tradition in the same sense of the other examples you are giving. So while it is an example of gender segregation, it is not really the same issue as gender segregation, certainly not on a bus line. If Curves allowed men and women, yet treated one group is inferior to another, then it would be a more applicable example. There are various divergent factors between the examples that need to be taken into account, and it is entirely possible to come to different conclusions based on those factors.

When dealing with the concept of gender segregation on a bus line, it is not necessary to deal with the entire scope of gender segregation across all situations. It is perfectly reasonable to come to a conclusion about the (im)propriety of such actions in the specific case without having to apply that same conclusion to all cases. It would actually be ignorant to apply the same conclusions across all cases irregardless of the factors involved.

While culture and tradition are important, that does not mean they are all necessarily things that make the world a better place. Some traditions can be detrimental. We have the right, and in some cases a need, to eliminate those traditions which are detrimental to society.

To me, treating women as second class citizens is improper. And that's the connotation "back of the bus" has to me, regardless of whether it is self-inflicted or not.

I find that judging all diverse cultures, which people participate in voluntarily, with harsh terms, is an intolerant style I dont much like.

Improper is a rather benign term actually when used in an opinion given the vast array of far more derogatory and confrontational terms available to use. It generally means much the same as what you've said yourself about gender segregation on buses, and even what you just said as well. "I don't like this".

Whether that makes it improper, or is the same as some other posters feelings about the buses, is a jesuitical/talmudic game i dont have the patience for right now.

It is a matter of definition and use of terms. As you've said, you don't like gender segregation on buses, and think it's a somewhat backwards tradition. That view is what I would term as finding something "improper" when expressing it myself. (It closely conforms to my own view actually.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I think the argument is that a private bus company is free to stipulate whatever seating code it likes, the objecting to which is solely the domain of its paying customers.

That is not what my argument with LotM is about.

I can say that gender segregation is allowed (in a particular case). I can say that gender segregation (in a particular case) is improper. They are not mutually exclusive statements because "(im)proper" and "(dis)allowed" are not the same thing.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Aeson


That is not what my argument with LotM is about.

I can say that gender segregation is allowed (in a particular case). I can say that gender segregation (in a particular case) is improper. They are not mutually exclusive statements because "(im)proper" and "(dis)allowed" are not the same thing.

OK.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


who said I had a problem with Pakistan or Bangladesh or Indonesia? I was saying what I want from mulsim countries, not bashing them all.

That is not how your phrasing reads.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


That is not how your phrasing reads.

"I dont have any problems if muslim countries have gender segregated buslines serving a few neighborhoods (of course no one should be beaten) as long as they dont go blowing people up, and it would be nice if they let women get educated and hold public office"

it can be read either way. Muslim countries can be read as either a collective singular noun - all muslim countries as a group - or as referring the plurality of individual muslim countries. Since an earlier poster mentioned the Taliban, and since they didnt let women get educated, and since as you know Im quite aware that in Turkey and Iraq women have gotten educations (and indeed Im even aware and think i have discussed here that women in Turkey cant wear veils at university) I would think it was clear that i was referring to indiv muslim countries, and drawing a distinction between pre-2001 afganistan, and KSA, on the one hand, and what id find acceptable on the other. How you can think im not aware that in some muslim countries women hold office and are educated, when ive discussed precisely those things in the case of the new Afghanistan, for example, is beyond me.