Next cover of Time magazine. It gets the point across perfectly though I could see people being upset with it.
You know it's funny. Back in the 90s I used to get this one chain letter emailed to me at least once a week. It was describing the atrocities committed by the Taliban against women there and was an effort to raise enlightenment etc. At one point some girl even had me sign a petition. Now those very same types of people are bitching and moaning about the war even though it really has no bearing on their own lives. I think some people just like to complain and/or find something to be offended by.Macbeth wrote:
Next cover of Time magazine. It gets the point across perfectly though I could see people being upset with it.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/ar … 09_400.jpg
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
My friend has no nose.Macbeth wrote:
How does she smell?
Terrible.
I can understand the logic behind cutting off hands for stealing, but where the hell did a nose come in?
I can only presume it's for not covering it up. Very nasty.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Marks her as a fornicator I believe. For adultery she'd be stoned.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I can understand the logic behind cutting off hands for stealing, but where the hell did a nose come in?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Btw, here's the chain letter I was referring to:
Came out in 1999.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/afghani.aspThe government of Afghanistan is waging a war upon women. The situation is getting so bad that one person in an editorial of the times compared the treatment of women there to the treatment of Jews in pre-Holocaust Poland.
Since the Taliban took power in 1996, women have had to wear burqua and have been beaten and stoned in public for not having the proper attire, even if this means simply not having the mesh covering in front of their eyes. One woman was beaten to DEATH by an angry mob of fundamentalists for accidentally exposing her arm while she was driving. Another was stoned to death for trying to leave the country with a man that was not a relative.
Women are not allowed to work or even go out in public without a male relative; professional women such as professors, translators, doctors, lawyers, artists and writers have been forced from their jobs and stuffed into their homes, so that depression is becoming so widespread that it has reached emergency levels. There is no way in such an extreme Islamic society to know the suicide rate with certainty, but relief workers are estimating that the suicide rate among women, who cannot find proper medication and treatment for severe depression and would rather take their lives than live in such conditions, has increased significantly.
Homes where a woman is present must have their windows painted so that she can never be seen by outsiders. They must wear silent shoes so that they are never heard. Women live in fear of their lives for the slightest misbehavior. Because they cannot work, those without male relatives or husbands are either starving to death or begging on the street, even if they hold Ph.D.'s. There are almost no medical facilities available for women, and relief workers, in protest, have mostly left the country, taking medicine and psychologists and other things necessary to treat the skyrocketing level of depression among women. At one of the rare hospitals for women, a reporter found still, nearly lifeless bodies lying motionless on top of beds, wrapped in their burqua, unwilling to speak, eat, or do anything, but slowly wasting away. Others have gone mad and were seen crouched in corners, perpetually rocking or crying, most of them in fear.
It is at the point where the term 'human rights violations' has become an understatement. Husbands have the power of life and death over their women relatives, especially their wives, but an angry mob has just as much right to stone or beat a woman, often to death, for exposing an inch of flesh or offending them in the slightest way. David Cornwell has told me that we in the United States should not judge the Afghan people for such treatment because it is a 'cultural thing', but this is not even true. Women enjoyed relative freedom, to work, dress generally as they wanted, and drive and appear in public alone until only 1996 — the rapidity of this transition is the main reason for the depression and suicide; women who were once educators or doctors or simply used to basic human freedoms are now severely restricted and treated as sub-human in the name of right-wing fundamentalist Islam. It is not their tradition or 'culture', but is alien to them, and it is extreme even for those cultures where fundamentalism is the rule. Besides, if we could excuse everything on cultural grounds, then we should not be appalled that the Carthaginians sacrificed their infant children, that little girls are circumcised in parts of Africa, that blacks in the deep south in the 1930s were lynched, prohibited from voting and forced to submit to unjust Jim Crow laws.
Everyone has a right to a tolerable human existence, even if they are women in a Muslim country in a part of the world that Americans do not understand.
If we can threaten military force in Kosovo in the name of human rights for the sake of ethnic Albanians, Americans can certainly express peaceful outrage at the oppression, murder and injustice committed against women by the Taliban.
Came out in 1999.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Express some outrage at Saudi Arabia plz.
Fuck Israel
So you want us to invade Saudi Arabia now?Dilbert_X wrote:
Express some outrage at Saudi Arabia plz.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Only an American could misinterpret 'Express outrage' as 'Invade'
Just stop buying their oil.
Just stop buying their oil.
Fuck Israel
As an American (but fuck off if you're going to generalize this attitude for all Americans, this is me) if there is someone has a good in demand and is doing something morally wrong, these two things are independent. You don't boycott the product you need to change their actions, you beat the shit out of them with the big stick until they stop doing what is morally wrong.
This all assuming you truly have a big stick and are willing to wield said stick to the fullest extent of its utter brutality, of which the the modern United States arguably does not have the former trait and most certainly does not have the latter trait. And thus a compromise.
This all assuming you truly have a big stick and are willing to wield said stick to the fullest extent of its utter brutality, of which the the modern United States arguably does not have the former trait and most certainly does not have the latter trait. And thus a compromise.
So, in protest, the action you take is to... collapse your own economy? Sounds smart.Dilbert_X wrote:
Only an American could misinterpret 'Express outrage' as 'Invade'
Just stop buying their oil.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Hunger strike...Spark wrote:
So, in protest, the action you take is to... collapse your own economy? Sounds smart.Dilbert_X wrote:
Only an American could misinterpret 'Express outrage' as 'Invade'
Just stop buying their oil.
or setting yourself on fireunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Hunger strike...Spark wrote:
So, in protest, the action you take is to... collapse your own economy? Sounds smart.Dilbert_X wrote:
Only an American could misinterpret 'Express outrage' as 'Invade'
Just stop buying their oil.
Or boycotting L4D2.Cybargs wrote:
or setting yourself on fireunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Hunger strike...Spark wrote:
So, in protest, the action you take is to... collapse your own economy? Sounds smart.
I approveDilbert_X wrote:
Just stop buying their oil.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Thats the convenient slef-serving intellectual dishonesty which lets you trade with despots.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
As an American if there is someone has a good in demand and is doing something morally wrong, these two things are independent.
Fuck Israel
Its their major (only?) export, to affect them thats where you hit them.Spark wrote:
So, in protest, the action you take is to... collapse your own economy? Sounds smart.
On the one hand further continuation of the 'war' in Afghanistan is justified by potential poor treatment of women by the Taliban.
On the other doing absolutely nothing about Saudi Arabia's treatment of women is justified because the US needs their oil.
.jpg)
Fuck Israel
No, see, that is the train of thought that allows you to invade another country, usurp the standing power, and leave. It doesn't justify trading with despots. It doesn't justify letting despots exist period.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats the convenient slef-serving intellectual dishonesty which lets you trade with despots.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
As an American if there is someone has a good in demand and is doing something morally wrong, these two things are independent.
If you're suggesting that this is what the US does, it's laughable. Not only does the US govt. trade with them, they install them and they make sure they stay there.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, see, that is the train of thought that allows you to invade another country, usurp the standing power, and leave. It doesn't justify trading with despots. It doesn't justify letting despots exist period.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats the convenient slef-serving intellectual dishonesty which lets you trade with despots.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
As an American if there is someone has a good in demand and is doing something morally wrong, these two things are independent.
As for your initial quote, the moment you decide to do something about that morally wrong thing, they stop being independent. In fact I'm pretty sure that a boycott comes first on the list when a country wishes to express its disapproval of another. We have seen this time and time again. Latest example I can think of involves Turkey and Israel with the floatilla incident.
ƒ³
I did not say that is what the U.S. does. I said that is what the U.S. (or any other superpower) should do assuming they meet the above "big stick" conditions.oug wrote:
If you're suggesting that this is what the US does, it's laughable. Not only does the US govt. trade with them, they install them and they make sure they stay there.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, see, that is the train of thought that allows you to invade another country, usurp the standing power, and leave. It doesn't justify trading with despots. It doesn't justify letting despots exist period.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats the convenient slef-serving intellectual dishonesty which lets you trade with despots.
As for your initial quote, the moment you decide to do something about that morally wrong thing, they stop being independent. In fact I'm pretty sure that a boycott comes first on the list when a country wishes to express its disapproval of another. We have seen this time and time again. Latest example I can think of involves Turkey and Israel with the floatilla incident.
Oh how effective those boycotts were.
Invade and dominate the places that have what we want but are unwilling to play by our rules? That's an unsustainable policy unless atrocities and sheer brutality are acceptable means.
Reciprocity wrote:
Invade and dominate the places that have what we want but are unwilling to play by our rules? That's an unsustainable policy unless atrocities and sheer brutality are acceptable means.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This all assuming you truly have a big stick and are willing to wield said stick to the fullest extent of its utter brutality, of which the the modern United States arguably does not have the former trait and most certainly does not have the latter trait. And thus a compromise.
so what's the point you're trying to make? Unless we(the US) collectively want to be the Nazis of the 21st century, the point is moot.
FM is doing his Turquoise impression. They're both neo-cons. Control everything and toss in a bit of wealth redistribution to keep the masses happy.Reciprocity wrote:
so what's the point you're trying to make? Unless we(the US) collectively want to be the Nazis of the 21st century, the point is moot.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-01 18:47:35)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat