Print
Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce
by The Australian
Thanks to Michael Murray for the link.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23786668-12377,00.html
Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce
FRANCE plunged into a heated debate about its marriage laws today after learning that a court had annulled the union of two Muslims because the husband said the wife was not the virgin she had claimed to be.
Politicians, feminists and human rights activists denounced the verdict, handed down last month but reported in the national press only on Thursday, as an affront to the legal equality of men and women and a violation of a woman's privacy.
The hoodwinked husband's lawyer responded just as forcibly that civil marriage was a legal contract. The court invalidated this one because the wife had lied about what French law calls an "essential quality" of a contracting party, he said.
Concerns about traditional Muslim views creeping into secular French law hung over the debate, but the strictly legal basis of the verdict forced critics to ask how two principles - contract fraud and sexual equality - could be reconciled.
"It is profoundly shocking that, in our country, a marriage can be annulled on the basis of non-virginity before the marriage," Frederic Lefebvre, spokesman for President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing UMP party, said.
Prominent feminist Elisabeth Badinter said the courts should defend Muslim women, not pressure them.
"The end result will be that some Muslim girls will rush to hospitals to have their hymens sewn back together again," she told France Inter radio.
Muslims make up about eight per cent of the population in France, which has vigorously defended its secular system against their occasional religious demands by banning Islamic headscarves in the civil service and in state schools.
Xavier Labbee, the husband's lawyer, denied that religion had anything to do with the verdict.
"The law says that when there is an error concerning essential qualities of one of the spouses, an annulment can be sought," he said on LCI television.
The same clause has been used in French courts to annul marriages in which one person discovered only afterwards that the other had concealed a divorce or had a physical or mental disability that made a normal sexual life impossible.
The rector of a large mosque in the northern city of Lille, where the case was tried, also denied Islam played any role.
In Islam, Amar Lafsar said, "virginity is not a necessary condition for marriage". The religion preached chastity before marriage but Muslims could heed or ignore the message.
"They're free," he told RTL radio. "They're in a country of law and liberty. Each is free to respond or not to the message."
Badinter said the verdict ignored the fact some traditional Muslim families shunned sexually active single daughters.
Recalling some young women were even murdered in so-called "honour killings", she said the wife in this case "did not have the freedom not to lie ... she lied in self-defence."
Laurence Rossignol, women's rights spokeswoman for the opposition Socialist Party, called the verdict unconstitutional.
"If the civil code could produce such a decision, we have to change it urgently," she said.
Lefebvre suggested an appeals court review the verdict.
"We are certainly not going to ask the wife to appeal, because if the verdict is annulled and the marriage is validated, that would probably not be good news for her," he said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23786668-12377,00.html
Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce
FRANCE plunged into a heated debate about its marriage laws today after learning that a court had annulled the union of two Muslims because the husband said the wife was not the virgin she had claimed to be.
Politicians, feminists and human rights activists denounced the verdict, handed down last month but reported in the national press only on Thursday, as an affront to the legal equality of men and women and a violation of a woman's privacy.
The hoodwinked husband's lawyer responded just as forcibly that civil marriage was a legal contract. The court invalidated this one because the wife had lied about what French law calls an "essential quality" of a contracting party, he said.
Concerns about traditional Muslim views creeping into secular French law hung over the debate, but the strictly legal basis of the verdict forced critics to ask how two principles - contract fraud and sexual equality - could be reconciled.
"It is profoundly shocking that, in our country, a marriage can be annulled on the basis of non-virginity before the marriage," Frederic Lefebvre, spokesman for President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing UMP party, said.
Prominent feminist Elisabeth Badinter said the courts should defend Muslim women, not pressure them.
"The end result will be that some Muslim girls will rush to hospitals to have their hymens sewn back together again," she told France Inter radio.
Muslims make up about eight per cent of the population in France, which has vigorously defended its secular system against their occasional religious demands by banning Islamic headscarves in the civil service and in state schools.
Xavier Labbee, the husband's lawyer, denied that religion had anything to do with the verdict.
"The law says that when there is an error concerning essential qualities of one of the spouses, an annulment can be sought," he said on LCI television.
The same clause has been used in French courts to annul marriages in which one person discovered only afterwards that the other had concealed a divorce or had a physical or mental disability that made a normal sexual life impossible.
The rector of a large mosque in the northern city of Lille, where the case was tried, also denied Islam played any role.
In Islam, Amar Lafsar said, "virginity is not a necessary condition for marriage". The religion preached chastity before marriage but Muslims could heed or ignore the message.
"They're free," he told RTL radio. "They're in a country of law and liberty. Each is free to respond or not to the message."
Badinter said the verdict ignored the fact some traditional Muslim families shunned sexually active single daughters.
Recalling some young women were even murdered in so-called "honour killings", she said the wife in this case "did not have the freedom not to lie ... she lied in self-defence."
Laurence Rossignol, women's rights spokeswoman for the opposition Socialist Party, called the verdict unconstitutional.
"If the civil code could produce such a decision, we have to change it urgently," she said.
Lefebvre suggested an appeals court review the verdict.
"We are certainly not going to ask the wife to appeal, because if the verdict is annulled and the marriage is validated, that would probably not be good news for her," he said.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, May 30, 2008 | PermalinkComments 101 - 150 of 1416 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers102. Comment #186808 by mordacious1 on May 31, 2008 at 10:37 am
ApplebyDon't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that what you consider fat/ugly women are more inteligent/witty than pretty ones. I'm saying that many are, period. Geeesh. Your opinions lead to hate, that's sad too.
Other Comments by mordacious1
103. Comment #186810 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:40 am
mordacious1 wrote:
Appleby
Your opinions lead to hate, that's sad too.
Only for the feeble-minded. And the attempt to demonize me is pathetic.
Other Comments by Appleby
104. Comment #186811 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:42 am
Mitchell Gilks wrote:
As I stated, if you state "unconventional" statements of fact, then expect to get funny looks.
"Funny looks" and being "unconventional" are hardly going to dissuade me from my true opinions.
Other Comments by Appleby
105. Comment #186812 by mordacious1 on May 31, 2008 at 10:43 am
ApplebyI have bantered enough here. I'll let other more errudite posters handle your comments if they feel like it. Hope you become a little more accepting of other's differences as you go through life.
Other Comments by mordacious1
106. Comment #186814 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:46 am
104. Comment #186811 by Appleby
I fail to see what your point in all of this is? What is it exactly?
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
107. Comment #186816 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:48 am
mordacious1 wrote:
Appleby
I have bantered enough here. I'll let other more errudite posters handle your comments if they feel like it. Hope you become a little more accepting of other's differences as you go through life.
The problem with this is, you cherry-pick what "differences" people should be accepting of. And more to the point, my personal opinions on the matters discussed here are not necessarily reflected in the form of actions. Am I not even free to *think* what I please?
Other Comments by Appleby
108. Comment #186817 by epeeist on May 31, 2008 at 10:49 am
Comment #186702 by ApplebyI would prefer not to marry a woman who had slept with other men in the past because I suspect most have a "special connection" with some of them (especially their first time). I've seen it too many times. As a husband, why should I have to live with something like this?I take it then that you would be perfectly okay with a woman rejecting you because you have slept with other women?
Other Comments by epeeist
109. Comment #186819 by epeeist on May 31, 2008 at 10:54 am
Comment #186789 by ApplebyI suppose if I were to say that I also believed white people are generally more intelligent than coloured people, it would just send you through the roof.You would have to tell me what you mean by "intelligent" and what evidence you have for your claim. Otherwise I am free to dismiss it as valueless.
Unless of course, you are using the statement to justify actions by yourself and others against black people.
Other Comments by epeeist
110. Comment #186821 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:54 am
Mitchell Gilks wrote:
I fail to see what your point in all of this is? What is it exactly?
Excellent question. It's simple. Assuming there is an objective morality of some kind independent of us, we have to be willing to accept the possibility that certain "truths" may not be politically correct, conventional or even acceptable by our own standards. Here's an example (and I'm not insisting it's true): Men really are superior to women.
If people, religious or not, cannot accept the possibility of such things, then we have not come far in the last thousand years and may not have a thousand left.
Other Comments by Appleby
111. Comment #186824 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:55 am
107. Comment #186816 by Appleby
Jeez...who is telling you that you are not free to think what you want to? Where is the thought policing totalitarians in the thread?
You act as if dissent or dislike of your opinions and views is somehow attempting to force you not to have them through means other than rational discourse.
You appear to be fighting shadows. I've seen no one advocate what you keep implying is being advocated against you.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
112. Comment #186826 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 11:02 am
110. Comment #186821 by Appleby
What blatant absurdity. Objective morality? I'm not sure that such a thing is logically possible. Demonstrate morality removed from subjectives. As I understand morality, it is a system for determining behaviour between agents, and is reliant on, and the product of agents. So I'm not sure that what you suggest is possible. Perhaps you think of morality differently. In which case you should define your terms.
Also even if it were, acknowledging something's possiblity is light-years away from taking it seriously as fact. I acknowledge the possibility of invisible fairies. I am however quite aways away from accepting the fact of their existence.
Again, I fail to see a point in this as well. You are again boxing shadows. I don't think you will find many people that deny the "possibilty" of many things they think are completely absurd. Now it's on your shoulders to give people a reason to believe that it is, of a matter of fact, the truth of the matter.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
113. Comment #186827 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 11:06 am
epeeist wrote:
I take it then that you would be perfectly okay with a woman rejecting you because you have slept with other women?
No, I wouldn't because I don't see men and women as equal in that way.
You would have to tell me what you mean by "intelligent" and what evidence you have for your claim. Otherwise I am free to dismiss it as valueless.
Unless of course, you are using the statement to justify actions by yourself and others against black people.
We don't always have all the evidence required to form an opinion. Some are formed over a long period of time and mainly through personal experience. Perhaps I don't necessarily believe what some politically correct scientists say about the matter (one can probably find another scientist who says something to the contrary). In such a situation, what else can we rely on but personal experience? And I don't care if you believe the same things as I do.
As far as my treatment of black people goes, it depends on a variety of factors. Perhaps I will treat the more intelligent ones differently from the less-intelligent ones (with regard to certain matters, that is). Experience has also taught me that you should get to know people before forming an opinion of them. For me, there is no contradiction with the idea that white people are still generally more intelligent than blacks. Do you find all this strange?
Other Comments by Appleby
114. Comment #186828 by epeeist on May 31, 2008 at 11:17 am
Comment #186827 by ApplebyWe don't always have all the evidence required to form an opinion.Oh good, then I am free to call you a misogynistic, racist bigot.
Care to deny it?
Other Comments by epeeist
115. Comment #186830 by mordacious1 on May 31, 2008 at 11:27 am
epeeistLOL
Other Comments by mordacious1
116. Comment #186831 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 11:29 am
epeeist wrote:
Oh good, then I am free to call you a misogynistic, racist bigot.Care to deny it?
I think you have completely missed the point. However, your reaction is a good example of someone not being amenable to the possibility of certain truths that go against their own standards (refer Comment #186821).
Here's a thought experiment. If homosexuality was rightfully found (nevermind how, for now) to be detrimental to society and homosexuals therefore sentenced to exile (for the good of society, perhaps even the species), could you possibly have the fortitude to accept that "truth" despite its consequences, maybe even to yourself? Or will you choose to do the "immoral" thing and resist punishment?
Even the "possibility" is difficult to swallow, isn't it?(your above reaction cited). This is why many atheists seem to be on a path not much different from religious people. But even that is difficult to admit, isn't it?
Other Comments by Appleby
117. Comment #186843 by phil rimmer on May 31, 2008 at 11:59 am
if homosexuality was rightfully found (nevermind how, for now) to be detrimental to society
But we do deal with troublesome groups of individuals. Criminals we lock up. You need to have good evidence though. There are issues of proving active evil-thinking required before such harm is inflicted. Illness (which you probably have in mind) is certainly not culpable and certainly smiting the whole of San Fransisco as a response is looked at in a dim light by humans these days.
No what we do is turn diversity into strength because it is part of us. Ever resourceful we humans.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
118. Comment #186845 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 12:09 pm
116. Comment #186831 by Appleby
You're an idiot. Plan and simple. You keep attacking straw-men, and points no one has made. Or argued for.
Our preferences, likes and dislikes do not dictate reality. Your point is fallacious and fatuous.
If a sexual preference, or fetish were decided harmful, or detrimental to society then I highly doubt you would find anyone disagreeing that it is wrong (except of course those that want to partake in it).
Look at the evidence, and the track record? Who is defending pedophiles for instance (I am in no way comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, I am merely breing up illegal sexual preferences to demonstrate the idiocy of the point. If anything, I'm showing how unrelated they are. It is also relevent to note that only 10% of pedophiles are actually homosexuals. Just as in the general population 90% of pedophiles are heterosexual)? Sexual preferences or desires that are detrimental to society are not defended. They are illegal because there is secular cause, and evidence that demonstrates them harmful. This is not true of homosexuality. It is no more true for heterosexuality, and raping women. Raping women is harmful, so it is illegal. When actions cause harm and suffering is when they become a moral issue, not before.
The facts seem to indicate the complete opposite of what you state. On what grounds do you make your assertions? Give a single actual demonstration where this is done? Who has advocated determining what is true based on what they would like to be true? And haven't you heard this criticism thrown toward theists thousands of times?
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
119. Comment #186847 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Phil Rimmer wrote:
But we do deal with troublesome groups of individuals. Criminals we lock up. You need to have good evidence though.
It's not the same thing. Criminals we can all agree deserve to be locked up. But how about when the decision is more difficult? What if we had to kill our only child because it was incontestibly the "right" thing to do at some point? In the same vein, much "simpler" issue such as men actually being superior to women should not be dismissed outright because we find it disagreeable. It's not the actual "agreeing" with it that matters but how we handle the possibility of having to deal with its truth, if ever demonstrated.
Other Comments by Appleby
120. Comment #186848 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 12:26 pm
119. Comment #186847 by Appleby
This is absolutely and completely absurd. It is the complete opposite that is true. It has been historically (and still is in many places) the case that women were considered inferior, and subserviant to men. It has always been the rational, and the intelligent that has demonstrated the complete lack of backing for this position.
Most notably because what is "better" is a value judgement, not a statement of fact. It is absurd to suggest that one can demonstrate an "objective value". Nothing is better than anything else objectively. That is completely a matter of opinion, and arbitrarily determined, not rationally or evidentiarily determined. Or it is contingent on context. Better at something. In which case there is nothing that all men are better than all women at, and visa versa.
You have it completely backward. It has historically been the uneducated irrational masses that believe men to be superior, and the rational and sophisticated intelligencia to show the absurdity of such a position.
I'm done bothering with your idiocy.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
121. Comment #186849 by mspadorchard on May 31, 2008 at 12:27 pm
"I have to agree with the people who think this isn't a big deal. My fiance has told me he was a virgin when we met, and frankly, if I found out now that he'd lied, it would completely undermine my faith in him and we probably wouldn't stay together. I wouldn't have cared so much if he hadn't been, but the lie would eat at me forever. (Perhaps that seems extreme, but honesty is extremely important to me.)Now, mind, I think it's absurd that Islamic culture puts so much emphasis on female virginity, to the point of declaring a woman worthless if she has premarital sex. But we may be blowing this out of proportion. People in America get divorced for lesser reasons every day, and nobody bats an eye.
The real question, I think, was how much choice the woman had. Was it an arranged marriage, was she forced to lie, did she want the divorce, how will her family treat her now, will she be able to remarry someone of her own choosing, etc. I'm far more concerned for her welfare now than for the loss of what most likely would've been a troubled marriage. "
I have one small thing to say about truthfulness, especially in a close relationship. Truthfulness in a relationsip requires
1. The person getting the "truth" has shown and intellectual and emotional capacity to accept the other person for whom they are, what they are, as a three dimensional human being, who is an imperfect work in progess at all times... and trying to be whom they are, with good intent. That recipiect must be trusted to not be overly judgemental, or willing to condemn others for being imperfect.
2. The givers of the "truth" needs to have personal courage to admit their "faults" or mistakes in life (to accept themselves with all their imperfections... including the ones that they are confident are not faults at all, but things with which they simply disagree with another about.). This person(s) must also have enough security in their own situation to not need the approval of one other person enough that the ability to be truthful, or risking disapproval, is not compromised.
A person who gets the truth is one who usually has shown the ability to deal with it in a mature fashion. A person who gives the truth, is usually one who has shown the ability to not be unduly dependent on the recipient's approval.
If she had really wanted to deceive him, unless she had delivered a baby in the past.. I really don't think she could not have continued the deception. (Sorry, but I don't think I could tell if a woman I was with was or was not a virgin based on my perception of her equipment...)
Mike O.
Other Comments by mspadorchard
122. Comment #186851 by mordacious1 on May 31, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I'd like a woman who has been raised in an islamic culture to comment on how an annulment, not divorce, could affect this woman's life.Other Comments by mordacious1
123. Comment #186852 by mordacious1 on May 31, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I have always told my wife the truth, and have, believe me, take the consequences for doing so. I don't know if I would be so brave if it meant that all the males in my family would beat me to death. There are limits you know, self-protection against death is one, I would think.Other Comments by mordacious1
124. Comment #186853 by AtheistAspy on May 31, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Actually Keith, you're the one making the idiotic comments. Yes, many atheists do in fact replace one dogma for another. In my experience, atheists care way more about politics than their religious counterparts and tend to be more dogmatic when it comes to political issues. If you disagree with them or are even slightly apathetic about politics they tend assume something's wrong with you.
Even when the person ends up having fewer beliefs to be dogmatic about, it seems they "make up" for the lost dogma by being even more dogmatic about their remaining beliefs.
Where do I get my ideas about atheists? Personal experience and empirical data. I've seen data showing that atheists donate less time and money to charity and have more emotional problems, for instance. That could be due to demographics since atheists are disproportionally young males. Or could be that smart people tend to be smug.
There was also my AP European History teacher I mentioned and many others who've convinced me that a disproportionate number of atheists are smug political activists.
I think people are dogmatic in general, atheists being no exception.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
125. Comment #186854 by AllanW on May 31, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I think it's clear that Appleby is trying to rationalise the dissonance caused by religion in his head. Sorry mate, try as you might, it won't square the circle.Either join us in the real, rational world or lie to yourself and compartmentalise your brain.
Quotes from Appleby below;
(What if we had to kill our only child because it was incontestibly the "right" thing to do at some point?)
(If homosexuality was rightfully found (nevermind how, for now) to be detrimental to society and homosexuals therefore sentenced to exile (for the good of society, perhaps even the species), could you possibly have the fortitude to accept that "truth" despite its consequences, maybe even to yourself?)
(For me, there is no contradiction with the idea that white people are still generally more intelligent than blacks.)
(Men really are superior to women.)
Other Comments by AllanW
126. Comment #186855 by AllanW on May 31, 2008 at 12:55 pm
AtheistAspy;Forgive me for mentioning it but your small-scale personal experiences are worth diddly squat. They point you in exactly the wrong direction according to vast amounts of research.
Just another example of specious subjective experience forming a series of conjectures and viewpoints or theories that not only do they not support but are directly contradicted by other, more objective and definitive research.
Nice try but no coconut. Next.
Other Comments by AllanW
127. Comment #186856 by mordacious1 on May 31, 2008 at 12:58 pm
AtheistAspyAtheists have more emotional problems than who? Fundalmentalists? Most SCIENTIFIC studies that I've seen disagree with you. As far as charity goes, you have to know the context. If you give to charity because your church tells you to or if you're buying your way into heaven, that's not really charity is it? You are getting something for it, like an insurance policy. The atheists I know that help the homeless,or whatever, do so because they care. These guys are more charitable than those that tithe, so any studies you have are meaningless.
Other Comments by mordacious1
128. Comment #186857 by phil rimmer on May 31, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Applebysuch as men actually being superior to women
OK pick your metric. In testosterone levels? Average height? Flatulence? Social skills? Agreeing with you?
We're there already. We make the judgments.
So what are you on the God Absolute Goodness Aggregate scale (as a male I mean)? A Two? Three? Not as low as I had thought. Must have been lifted by your flatulence score.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
129. Comment #186860 by phil rimmer on May 31, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Atheist AspyEven when the person ends up having fewer beliefs to be dogmatic about, it seems they "make up" for the lost dogma by being even more dogmatic about their remaining beliefs.
Ah the Aspy theory of the Conservation of Dogma.
You'll have corroborated evidence for this, of course? No? A second anecdote? Hmm? Someone else who thinks the same that you can quote? No?
Bloody Hell. At least with dogma there is a bit of track record...
EDIT Making a logical connection with this would be a start..
I've seen data showing that atheists donate less time and money to charity and have more emotional problems, for instance.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
130. Comment #186861 by GBile on May 31, 2008 at 1:23 pm
GBile wrote ( in response to Appleby's question 'Am I forced to like homosexuals?'):
Of course not. But in the case you actually dislike homosexuals, you must have a reason for that. I hope this reason is not: because it says so in a book. That goes for all other opinions and convictions.
To this Appleby answered:
Well I do dislike homosexuals. What they do simply disgusts me. Does this make me religious or a bigot? Am I not permitted to feel the way I do about them? Must I be at worst indifferent to them? Is this some kind of objective morality? Am I also wrong for preferring the company of beautiful women and shunning the fat and ugly ones?
An unexpected answer. I never suggested anything like your statements ending in questionmarks. But your dislike for homosexuals apparently does not come from 'in this here book it says that it is an abomination', which is what I hoped for. I take it that you thought about it for some time and let your disgust dictate your opinion. (Although it is not my bussiness, I wonder what about homosexuals you find disgusting. The use of an anus for insertion of a penis, or specifically that it is a male anus? Two males living together (like roommates on campus)? What?)
Preferring the company of beautiful women and shunning the ugly ones is priceless. You might have to avoid your mother, sister, doctor, boss for all I know. What a life.
Other Comments by GBile
131. Comment #186863 by epeeist on May 31, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Comment #186831 by ApplebyI think you have completely missed the point. However, your reaction is a good example of someone not being amenable to the possibility of certain truths that go against their own standards (refer Comment #186821).You have said that half the population should have a different standard of behaviour applied to them purely on the basis of their gender.
You have intimated that you would treat people differently because of the colour of their skin or their sexuality, not because of any evidence but just because of personal "opinion" (which is in fact simply prejudice).
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Other Comments by epeeist
132. Comment #186873 by Brian English on May 31, 2008 at 2:44 pm
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Oh, oh. I know this. It's crocoduck? A platypus?
Other Comments by Brian English
133. Comment #186895 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Mitchell Gilks wrote:
This is absolutely and completely absurd. It is the complete opposite that is true. It has been historically (and still is in many places) the case that women were considered inferior, and subserviant to men. It has always been the rational, and the intelligent that has demonstrated the complete lack of backing for this position.
Most notably because what is "better" is a value judgement, not a statement of fact. It is absurd to suggest that one can demonstrate an "objective value". Nothing is better than anything else objectively. That is completely a matter of opinion, and arbitrarily determined, not rationally or evidentiarily determined. Or it is contingent on context. Better at something. In which case there is nothing that all men are better than all women at, and visa versa.
You have it completely backward. It has historically been the uneducated irrational masses that believe men to be superior, and the rational and sophisticated intelligencia to show the absurdity of such a position. I'm done bothering with your idiocy.
So I suppose even if the evidence of men's superioriry over women (let's say intellectual) were to become virtually incontrovertible one day, you would still have trouble accepting it because it goes against what you prefer to believe. This sounds almost religious to me.
It also kind of reminds me about all this talk about torture "having been shown by science" to be ineffective in extracting the truth from people. Can we not deal even with the possibility - look at some of the immature reactions so far on this board - that it may be the most effective method? What do we do, then? Why does the "truth" have to conform with what we think "should be the case"? I'm beginning to think there really is a kind of inherent tendency toward dogmatism in people. And that doesn't make it right.
Other Comments by Appleby
134. Comment #186897 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 5:14 pm
epeeist wrote:
You have said that half the population should have a different standard of behaviour applied to them purely on the basis of their gender.
I said nothing about standards. I merely stated my personal opinion on the matter and pointed out your remarkable ability to (in principle) accept only truths that conform to your standards.
You have intimated that you would treat people differently because of the colour of their skin or their sexuality, not because of any evidence but just because of personal "opinion" (which is in fact simply prejudice).
I said it depends on a variety of factors. We treat people differently all the time and think nothing of it. Why are skin colour and gender not acceptable reasons for doing so? Political correctness?
Other Comments by Appleby
135. Comment #186898 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 5:21 pm
GBiles wrote:
(Although it is not my bussiness, I wonder what about homosexuals you find disgusting. The use of an anus for insertion of a penis, or specifically that it is a male anus? Two males living together (like roommates on campus)? What?)
Does it matter? Personally I think males and females evolved for partnership with each other and homosexuals are an aberration in nature, which is not uncommon. Are you able to be objective about answers like this or will you be tempted to label me a bigot? If you are tempted to silence me for my opinion (perhaps also incite others for support) - in the fear that other people might also find it justified - then you've illustrated my point in all this quite nicely.
Preferring the company of beautiful women and shunning the ugly ones is priceless. You might have to avoid your mother, sister, doctor, boss for all I know. What a life.
I thought it was obvious I was referring to the women I date.
Other Comments by Appleby
136. Comment #186900 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 5:28 pm
AllanW wrote:
I think it's clear that Appleby is trying to rationalise the dissonance caused by religion in his head. Sorry mate, try as you might, it won't square the circle.
Either join us in the real, rational world or lie to yourself and compartmentalise your brain.
You've misunderstood me (which is not surprising). What I've been saying has nothing to do with religion. I just don't want atheism to become like a religion. I actually prefer having something of a slight (forgive me) moral superiority over religious people but am finding it more and more difficult to justify. Perhaps we were better off remaining in the closet.
Other Comments by Appleby
137. Comment #186901 by keith on May 31, 2008 at 5:37 pm
qomac,I now see what you were saying. I apologise for misunderstanding you. However, I still think your interpretation of AtheistAspy's comments are wrong.
Other Comments by keith
138. Comment #186907 by MaxD on May 31, 2008 at 6:16 pm
AthiestAspy,
Yes, many atheists do in fact replace one dogma for another.
Maybe but simply saying it doesn't make it so.
In my experience, atheists care way more about politics than their religious counterparts and tend to be more dogmatic when it comes to political issues.
Luckily personal anecdotes don't count for much. In any event this seems like a silly statement given what newspapers, and polling data suggest. Religious people are hugely political and your statement of equivocation sounds a wee bit like the silly meanderings through PC land.
If you disagree with them or are even slightly apathetic about politics they tend assume something's wrong with you.
More personal anecdote I think and pointless. I find that people who are passionate about politics whether religious or not tend to have heaps of scorn for the politically apathetic.
Even when the person ends up having fewer beliefs to be dogmatic about, it seems they "make up" for the lost dogma by being even more dogmatic about their remaining beliefs.
Uh....proof? You may be right but lets see some data.
Where do I get my ideas about atheists? Personal experience and empirical data. I've seen data showing that atheists donate less time and money to charity and have more emotional problems, for instance.
Firstly I think there are huge problems with the study on "donations to charity." What is charity? Are all charities considered? What about the fact that many secularists are more than happy to see their tax dollars go to social saftey net programs of a wide variety of types. When taken into account it will likely be that both sides are similar. Though maybe not, atheists seem to do better at marriage than born agains.
Care to point to this "more psychological problems" paper(s)?
That could be due to demographics since atheists are disproportionally young males. Or could be that smart people tend to be smug. (/blockquote>
Hmmmm papers please? Let me see the primary research on the first claim on disproportional young male representation please.
There was also my AP European History teacher I mentioned and many others who've convinced me that a disproportionate number of atheists are smug political activists.
Care to unpack the reasons and not bore us with the worthless stand alone lament?
I think people are dogmatic in general, atheists being no exception.I know this PC complaint certainly seems dogmatic.
Other Comments by MaxD
139. Comment #186913 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 6:47 pm
133. Comment #186895 by Appleby
Are you too stupid to understand what I said? Superiority is a value judgement, not something that can be demonstrated outside of a context, or that can be shown as an over all state of being. And surely you don't think that every single male is more intelligent than every single female?
You clearly aren't very intelligent, so say that the most intelligent people were men (though the highest IQ ever recorded was Marilyn vos Savant at 230, a woman) how would that make you superior to women in that regard? Care to explain that logic? More intelligent women would still be superior to you in that regard. This is of course bullshit in any case, men tend to do better on average in spatial and mathematics tests, while women do better on language and memory tests. Over all though, the IQ average of men and women are roughly the same.
No where did I suggest that men and women are completely equal at everything. That is a retarded sentiment. There is not a single thing that all men are better than all women at, and visa versa. So clearly the only consistent measurement would be by each individual, and I seriously hope that you don't think that there is nothing that any woman can do better than you. Or is more skills at than you. If you do think that then I think you are quite insane.
Even if it were true that the top people in everything were male (though I don't think for a second that is the case), this doesn't equal you then being superior to women in those regards as well. How does that even begin to make sense?
Unless you are planing to develope some system to allot rights based on ability in certain fields or something then what is the point of this? Advocating equal rights and freedoms in no way suggests that one believes all people to be equal in skill and ability in all regards. That is absurd. It is a red harring, and a non sequitur. It doesn't matter, and it in no way is a factor. There are no skills or abilities that are inherent in some groups and not in others, it is individualistic. You are irrationally infering links between things that simply do not exist.
I consistently fail to see any point whatsoever in anything that you have put forward. I also fail to see any amount of sense or logic tying it together.
Lastly, you ignored my criticism of your assertion that people on here are deciding what's true based on personal preference, and a demand for a demonstration of your assertion, and instead just opted to reassert it.
It would appear to me that you are the one that would like your sexist, homophobic, and bigotted sentiments to be true, and don't care what the facts of the matter are. If you did, you would actually look into such things before asserting them.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
140. Comment #186917 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Whoa calm down, Mitchell.You are misrepresenting what I said and running with your own misinterpretations of it. This is not the mark of an educated person, I'm sorry to say.
In the question of the superiority of men over women, it's not about superiority in certain tasks or in all cases. It's more about cumulatively, when we don't have the latest scientific studies with regard to the matter in hand (and most of the time, we don't). When a decision about who should have the final say about things is required for example, that's when this "judgement" should kick in. I suppose you are now thinking of situations where women would be the best judge (e.g. cooking or childcare) but it's possible that the scientific data on that would contradict you. The point is, you use judgements like this in any case (i.e. the "we-all-know" type arguments) but apparently prefer the ones that are politically correct or in line with your own beliefs.
I would be willing to accept for example, if the truth of the matter was that women are actually overall superior to men (I think you would too but strangely not the reverse, am I right?) regardless of how I feel about the issue personally. What differentiates people like me from people like you is that you are actually predisposed to cherry-picking which truths you wish to subscribe to in the same way that say, creationists try to gain scientific credibility for their beliefs.
Other Comments by Appleby
141. Comment #186920 by mmurray on May 31, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I don't understand this virginity thing. Surely you want your partner to have had lots of experience so they know how much better it is with you ? Otherwise they are always going to be wondering ... :-)Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
142. Comment #186927 by keith on May 31, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Michael,I don't understand this virginity thing. Surely you want your partner to have had lots of experience so they know how much better it is with you ? Otherwise they are always going to be wondering ...
Actually, no. The idea that my wife might have slept with 50 men before finally choosing me would not make me feel privileged. Maybe it's to do with the idea that men...I?...want women to see sex as something intimate and not just the satisfying of a bodily need with whoever happens to be geographically closest, something as quick and easy as eating a McDonald's hamburger when hungry. However, I suspect this might be a generation thing. Suddenly, despite my best efforts, I've turned into my grandad.
At the other extreme, I would find it odd (though not a turn-off as with the 50 previous sexual partners), that anyone had reached deep into adulthood without having had any sexual encounters. I would want to know how this strange state of affairs had come about. Was it personal choice? Frigidity? Lack of opportunity? Religion? Plain ugliness?
Other Comments by keith
143. Comment #186929 by noodly_noodleson on May 31, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Appleby,Actually your argument has been running in circles throughout this thread.
This is a sign of lacking the sophistication required to adapt to new, challenging ideas that may go against your cherished beliefs. Not all "-phobias" and "-isms" are bad (or will continue to be forever).I suppose if I were to say that I also believed white people are generally more intelligent than coloured people, it would just send you through the roof. That, I'm afraid, would be a kind of dogmatism on your part.
You seem to be under the impression that your opinions are somehow revolutionary, whereas the more visceral reactions you accuse everyone of having to them seem to stem in part from the fact that they are quite similar to the opinions religion has been vomiting at humanity for ages.
Perhaps I don't necessarily believe what some politically correct scientists say about the matter (one can probably find another scientist who says something to the contrary).Perhaps I don't necessarily believe what some [atheistic] evolutionary biologists say about the matter (one can probably find another scientist who says [the Earth is only 6000 years old]).
There, fixed that for you. But do go on comparing everyone else to dogmatists.
I would be willing to accept for example, if the truth of the matter was that women are actually overall superior to men (I think you would too but strangely not the reverse, am I right?) regardless of how I feel about the issue personally.
Actually you already said that you would not necessarily accept evidence you disagree with. As Mitchell said, the studies that have been done have shown little difference in intelligence between men and women, yet you clearly don't seem happy with these results, as you keep arguing the hypothetical. How about "Sex differences in self-estimates on two validated IQ test subscale scores" (Furnham, Crawshaw, Rawles)? It states that while IQ averages are generally the same between sexes, men tend to overestimate their own intelligence and the intelligence of men in general. Would you say that's accurate?
Other Comments by noodly_noodleson
144. Comment #186937 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 9:35 pm
140. Comment #186917 by Appleby
That is the third time you have ignored every single thing I said to merely reassert your unsupported and rediculous assertions.
I already answered your retarded question numerous times. There is no such thing as over all superiority. That doesn't make any sense.
I would not accept that anything was "over all superior" than anything else. Outside of a context the statement has no meaning. All I see is you telling me that apples are "over all superior" to oranges. Without explaining in what way, or how so, the statement is vacuous.
You just keep ignoring everything I have to say, and asserting things that easily demonstrated as absurd and wrong, then saying I'm just disagreeing with you for the pure and simple fact that I don't like what you have to say despite the fact that I have actively shown what you have had to say to be idiotic and wrong.
I don't like what you have to say because it's wrong. I don't like unreason, and fallacious assertions. They annoy me. My personal preferences and likes and dislikes have zero sway over reality. It would be fallacious and irrational for me to bring them into my thought processing in matters of fact. So I do not.
I'm disagreeing with you because I'm quite confident that you're wrong.
I think that it is also, again, quite idiotic to say that I would be happier if women were "over all superior" to men. I am a man. That would be self deprecating. Yeah, I'd much rather believe that I was inferior than superior...yeah... This is something I hear from theists all the time too. I'm just an atheist because I don't like the idea of eternal bliss and magic powers if I play my cards right. I'd much prefer a short under 100 years (at best) existence and then oblivion. Are they insane? Of course I'd rather eternal life and magic powers, who in their right mind wouldn't? What I'd rather be true however is of zero interest to what is in fact true.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
145. Comment #186939 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:03 pm
143. Comment #186929 by noodly_noodleson
Hey, who needs pesky facts and studies when you have yourself as the standard by which all else is judged?
Coincidentally everything that I identify as is "over-all superior" than every other preceived group. Damn I'm lucky eh? To be born into the all around best group in existence! What are the odds?
You know what they say? The one thing that could possibly make team A better than team B is if I were moved from team B to team A.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
146. Comment #186943 by mmurray on May 31, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Hi KeithAh sorry. I should have put a smiley on that -- I've fixed it now. It was supposed to be a facetious alternative to the idea that women could be regarded as `damaged goods' which I find pretty offensive. Actually I think the idea of women being goods is pretty offensive. But I guess that's just my left-wing, dogmatic atheism coming to the fore :-)
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
147. Comment #186947 by epeeist on May 31, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Comment #186917 by ApplebyI suppose you are now thinking of situations where women would be the best judge (e.g. cooking or childcare)Ah, I see where you are coming from, "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche". Now where have I heard that before?
In that case perhaps we ought to be restricting women's education? I mean you wouldn't want girls going to places like Oxford or Cambridge would you? A little like the girls from my wife's school do http://www.withington.manchester.sch.uk/downloads/Content/prospectus/wgs_06_leavers_b.pdf
Obviously too much for their pretty little heads. Much better to let them learn flower arranging, domestic management and a little bit of music (not too complicated though, mere bagatelles on the forte piano or in family groups. One wouldn't want them playing in orchestras, you never know what ideas they might get).
Other Comments by epeeist
148. Comment #186953 by keith on June 1, 2008 at 12:46 am
Michael,Yes, I think the idea of anyone being seen as 'goods' is stupid and brutal, though I don't personally find it 'offensive' in the sense that I'm not personally offended by it.
I've really come to hate the word 'offensive' and this is not only because religious people use it to stop any legitimate criticism aimed at them. I just feel that for me to feel offended by something it must be aimed at me. So, despite the fact that my sympathies usually lie with the person who I feel is being unfairly treated, I personally don't feel offended when women are described as goods, black people are called the 'n' word and gays are called faggots. These words might be offensive to women, black people and gays, but not to me personally.
I think my point is that in the same way we can't feel other people's pain, despite what actors may say on sickly US TV shows, I don't believe we can feel offense by proxy.
I think what started me off on all this was Al-Rwandi's touchiness a month or two ago when someone described a woman on this site as 'pretty' or something similar. I can't remember if the poster paid no attention to what she was saying or whether the comment on her looks was a bonus thrown in. Either way, Al wasn't having any of it.
Now, I think it's great to support people who need supporting, but there is always the danger that proclaiming yourself 'Defender of Women' becomes just as much about self-image as about the women you're supposed to be defending.
In this particular case I wanted to stand back and see what the woman herself said about the 'pretty' comment. Maybe she would even have liked it. However, Al jumped in and took offense so quickly on her behalf that she never really got the chance to say anything much.
By the way, after an unpromising start, I've really grown to like Al. Even so, I didn't agree with him on the Pretty Womangate Affair. However, it now occurs to me that the woman in question was probably Annabanana and he might have been sticking up for a woman rather than women, something that I totally sympathise with. Defender of a woman, rather than Defender of Women, is a good title.
Other Comments by keith
149. Comment #186958 by epeeist on June 1, 2008 at 12:58 am
Comment #186953 by keithEven so, I didn't agree with him on Pretty Womangate. However, it now occurs to me that the woman in question was probably Annabanana and he might have been sticking up for a woman rather than women, something that I totally sympathise with. Defender of a woman, rather than Defender of Women, is a good title.And this is where I fall out with Appleby.
Do I dislike individual black people or women, absolutely. Do I feel intellectually superior to particular white people, definitely. Does this translate into dislike of all black people and all women or a feeling of superiority over all white people? Don't be silly.
Do I think that Islam is a brutal and primitive religion? Yes. Does this mean I think that all Muslims are primitive and brutal, to do so would show a lack of rationality.
Other Comments by epeeist
150. Comment #186971 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 1:57 am
noodly_noodleson wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that your opinions are somehow revolutionary, whereas the more visceral reactions you accuse everyone of having to them seem to stem in part from the fact that they are quite similar to the opinions religion has been vomiting at humanity for ages.
This similarity is of no significance. Your association to them is unwarranted. I mentioned this in my first post with regard to the article above.
Perhaps I don't necessarily believe what some [atheistic] evolutionary biologists say about the matter (one can probably find another scientist who says [the Earth is only 6000 years old]).
There, fixed that for you. But do go on comparing everyone else to dogmatists.
This is a strawman. Two *legitimate* scientists can indeed have differing opinions on certain matters. Whom to believe is then left up to us to decide (based on experience, preference etc.).
As Mitchell said, the studies that have been done have shown little difference in intelligence between men and women, yet you clearly don't seem happy with these results, as you keep arguing the hypothetical. How about "Sex differences in self-estimates on two validated IQ test subscale scores" (Furnham, Crawshaw, Rawles)? It states that while IQ averages are generally the same between sexes, men tend to overestimate their own intelligence and the intelligence of men in general. Would you say that's accurate?
I *am* talking about hypotheticals. Stop making this about me. Let me ask you this. What IF repeated studies showed that women were inferior to men in 90% of standard intellectual tests? Would you then accept the inferiority of women? Given how you feel about the issue now? Would it kill you if the "truth" (as far as we can tell) was actually that? Could you possibly accept it? This says a lot about you.
Other Comments by Appleby
More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 | Next | Last
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
Richard Dawkins
"What are all of us but self-reproducing robots? We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot child."
Richard Dawkins
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10."
Unknown
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense."
Voltaire
Other Recommended Reading
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
101. Comment #186807 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:34 am
It is a statement of fact not of opinion. As I stated, if you state "unconventional" statements of fact, then expect to get funny looks. Also, anecdotes are hardly "facts". Not to mention, based on your experience? So you consider yourself the judge of intelligence do you? Puh-leeze.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks