Iran executes woman convicted of killing man she claims tried to sexually abuse her

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Well the content of those beliefs should be easy to suss out. The definition I'd basically use would be beliefs which enable the violent treatment of others, the execution of others (in all cases), the repression of others for expressing and practising things which are completely natural (homosexual sex, "fornication"), etc.

But why? Again, these are examples rather than an actual definition. It appears to me that you've selected an arbitrary subset of beliefs that you happen to disagree with, and just labeled them as "backwards". Why aren't any of the other beliefs that you disagree with also backwards?

In this particular case, we're discussing execution. And all you're really telling me here is "execution is backwards because it's backwards", rather than what exactly it is about execution that makes it so.

Reply 23

Original post by Wahid-r

This is going to go into the whole objective/subjective morality debate. I would look to the works of top ethicists like Shelly Kagan who have made great arguments for why we can have a secular objective morality...I'm currently looking into this field. Also we can attack theist's supposed objective morality.

Indeed, and it's not a debate I was looking to get drawn into this on this thread.

Really? Sounds interesting, I'll read up on her arguments.

Reply 24

Original post by tazarooni89

But why? Again, these are examples rather than an actual definition. It appears to me that you've selected an arbitrary subset of beliefs that you happen to disagree with, and just labeled them as "backwards". Why aren't any of the other beliefs that you disagree with also backwards?

In this particular case, we're discussing execution. And all you're really telling me here is "execution is backwards because it's backwards", rather than what exactly it is about execution that makes it so.

No, they're definitions, I guess the execution clearly comes under the violent treatment of others. Look, I didn't come here to get drawn into the objective/subjective morality discussion. I've explained why I class them as backwards and obviously beliefs which differ from mine, but don't come under those definitions will not be backwards.

Moreover, they're not arbitrary. I'm using the standard of the values of the West in which I have been brought up. So are my yardsticks subjective? Completely so, but are they arbitrary? No.

Reply 25

username1044970

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Indeed, and it's not a debate I was looking to get drawn into this on this thread.

Really? Sounds interesting, I'll read up on her arguments.

Shelly Kagan is a male :rofl:

Reply 26

Original post by Dima-Blackburn

Shelly Kagan is a male :rofl:

Lmao, why do americans have female names for men, it always catches me out :laugh:

Reply 27

Wahid-r

11

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Indeed, and it's not a debate I was looking to get drawn into this on this thread.

Really? Sounds interesting, I'll read up on her arguments.

Theists always love to bring it up when they want to challenge our condemnation of their barbaric views because they think it's the ace up their sleeve.

Lol it's a he, I assumed it was a lady from the name as well.

Check this out if you have time, it's what got me thinking about twice about it:

[video="youtube;SiJnCQuPiuo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo[/video]

Reply 28

Juichiro

Original post by MatureStudent36

Again. Different to our belief system but supported by many in Iran.

Although I don't agree with what has happened, I'm not about to jump into the outrage bus because one group of people with one set of belief systems does something another group of people with a different set if belief systems disagree with.

The only way for it to stop happening is for Iranians to stop it.

Technically, it is backward where "backward" means "related to the past" in an anachronistic sense, this is, something (like an opinon) related to the past that still exists in the present. Retributive justice is something related to the past when it used to be the norm around the world. It is not the case now, that is why it is called a backward view

Reply 29

beautifulxxx

15

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Lmao, why do americans have female names for men, it always catches me out :laugh:

How is Shelly a man's name? :facepalm:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 30

Original post by beautifulxxx

How is Shelly a man's name? :facepalm:

Posted from TSR Mobile

I have no idea, americans are funny like that, there are also men called Beverley :lol:

Reply 31

Original post by Wahid-r

Theists always love to bring it up when they want to challenge our condemnation of their barbaric views because they think it's the ace up their sleeve.

Lol it's a he, I assumed it was a lady from the name as well.

Check this out if you have time, it's what got me thinking about twice about it:

[video="youtube;SiJnCQuPiuo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo[/video]

Thanks, I'm watching it now.

Reply 32

beautifulxxx

15

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

I have no idea, americans are funny like that, there are also men called Beverley :lol:

Loooooool!!! Yeah they do have weird names tbh, never heard Beverly though, that's micky take.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

SuperiorGenius

Original post by MatureStudent36

Again. Different to our belief system but supported by many in Iran.

Although I don't agree with what has happened, I'm not about to jump into the outrage bus because one group of people with one set of belief systems does something another group of people with a different set if belief systems disagree with.

The only way for it to stop happening is for Iranians to stop it.

I'm Iranian and the death penalty isn't supported by many in Iran. Only the minority

Reply 34

tazarooni89

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

No, they're definitions, I guess the execution clearly comes under the violent treatment of others. Look, I didn't come here to get drawn into the objective/subjective morality discussion. I've explained why I class them as backwards and obviously beliefs which differ from mine, but don't come under those definitions will not be backwards.

Moreover, they're not arbitrary. I'm using the standard of the values of the West in which I have been brought up. So are my yardsticks subjective? Completely so, but are they arbitrary? No.

Exactly my point. I think this is why the previous poster asked you "Backward views? Or different views to those accepted in the west?" If you're using "standard values of the West" as your yardstick, for "backwardness", there isn't any difference.

Reply 35

username1044970

Original post by tazarooni89

Exactly my point. I think this is why the previous poster asked you "Backward views? Or different views to those accepted in the west?" If you're using "standard values of the West" as your yardstick, for "backwardness", there isn't any difference.

I suppose "backwards" could be used to describe beliefs that were common in the past (or should I say "back in the days") but are not common today.

I've met a few Iranian academics and some youngsters, and they mostly disagree with the harsher aspects of the Iranian criminal law, so it's not just the Godless heathen "westerns" who would describe it as 'backwards'. Hell, a lot of people in the West (specifically USA) actually agree with the death penalty.

Reply 36

Democracy

Original post by MatureStudent36

Again. Different to our belief system but supported by many in Iran.

Although I don't agree with what has happened, I'm not about to jump into the outrage bus because one group of people with one set of belief systems does something another group of people with a different set if belief systems disagree with.

You what?

Do you know anything at all about Iran, or did you just assume that since it's in the Middle East, obviously everyone in the country must be an Islamist nutter?

Tazarooni89 is doing a great job at presenting the apologist's side of the argument - you can jump on whichever bus you please, but this **** isn't supported by the majority of Iranians at all. This sort of thing did not occur in Iran prior to 1979 and is merely a continuation of the dictatorship's inhumanity.

What's ironic is that Iran is pretty much the only Middle Eastern nation whose people have a history of dissenting AGAINST Islamism and Islamist barbarism - the West egged on the "Arab Spring" and the let the Arabs put a bunch of Islamist loonies in power. But back in 2009, Iranians were on the brink of overthrowing an Islamist regime and they were full on ignored by the West.

It's very easy to sit there at home and assume that everyone in the Middle East wants to be brutalised by this religious *******s - easy, convenient and stereotypical - but it is far from the reality of the situation.

The only way for it to stop happening is for Iranians to stop it.

How do you propose this happens, when the country is run by an undemocratic and brutal theocracy which has time and time again crushed any attempts at changing the status quo?

Reply 37

tazarooni89

Original post by Dima-Blackburn

I suppose "backwards" could be used to describe beliefs that were common in the past (or should I say "back in the days") but are not common today.

I've met a few Iranian academics and some youngsters, and they mostly disagree with the harsher aspects of the Iranian criminal law, so it's not just the Godless heathen "westerns" who would describe it as 'backwards'. Hell, a lot of people in the West (specifically USA) actually agree with the death penalty.

I agree, this seems like much more of an intuitive definition. Although I'd note that in this sense, a belief being "backwards" is not an indication of any sort of invalidity or inappropriateness. If one wishes to discuss more than just the prevalence of such beliefs, perhaps the definition is also somewhat incomplete.

Reply 38

The Socktor