FGM case in Atlanta

---

At one point, when it was clear that the U.S.'s justification for going to war Iraq was (at best) mistaken, Bush and his wife justified the invasion as a way to support the interests and aspirations of women. There may have been some truth to that in Afghanistan, but when you look at the U.S.'s record in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Sub-Saharan Africa, it's not hard to realize that Bush et al are completely full of crap.

You can argue that FGM is a cultural phenomenon and not a religious one, and that the Koran doesn't justify it (although there are Muslims who will dispute that), but what a lot of people get from a fundaments interpretation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that women are lesser beings than men are. It sets the zeitgeist so that, for some people, things like FGM is perfectly acceptable -- in fact, is good.

So much for religion as a moral force.

I'm sure Lanky is fully well aware of the situation re AIDS/HIV in Africa, as most Westerners are; his point was that it is not helpful for Amnesty International to focus on the transmission of the HIV virus in particular when there are other, more likely diseases and infections which can be spread in this way and many health risks that do not involve STD’s at all. I agree there is some sense in his view, as it happens.As for your other points, they are worthy of comment, but I'll steer clear of responding to them if you dont mind, otherwise we'll end up knee-deep in another discussion involving either religion or the US-lead war in Iraq. I'd like to see this thread stay on topic as the subject interests me; I am dying for some proponent of FGM to come on here voicing ridiculous assertions, though I very much doubt the likelihood of that development!

I am dying for some proponent of FGM to come on here...Don't hold your breath for that to happen. I'm only aware of the rare person from an area where FGM is practiced who ever posts to this site, and the person who does is more likely to be from an urban area, where FGM is not as common.You can analyze FGM philopophically as much as you like. It's not unusual in the evolution of human culture. Most everyone in the West agrees that it's bad. I'm sure we'd be analyzing throwing virgin girls into volcanoes if we were on line a few hundred years ago. The problem is not likely to be fixed any time soon internally, where it is practiced. The question is what forces can be brought to bear to change it?According to Bush, the West is at war with "radical Islam". Is abuse of women and children another front of the war?

"Don't hold your breath for that to happen"Steve, you have the irritating habit of dissecting a person’s sentence and presenting only a portion of it in a deliberate attempt to take that persons words out of context; I have mentioned this to you before now. I trained in journalism Steve, which means I was actually educated in how to do this; in any case, I really don’t think it would take a third level education to spot that elementary manoeuvre.I would hardly likely ‘hold my breath’ for the arrival of an occurrence which, as I'd said, I would very much doubt the development of!"According to Bush, the West is at war with "radical Islam". Is abuse of women and children another front of the war?"You should add that question to any of the recent threads re religion or war. Or start a new thread in the exact area of this subject that interests you, if you like. I am not going to be drawn on the subject; I have no interest in discussing it, as I've told you.

Man, you're reading way too much into that; no need to roll out your resume. There was no personal intent. Here it is sans metaphor: No one will post here in support of FGM.

If you don't want to discuss something, then you are free not to reply. Not every reply to you warrants a reply from you.

In my opinion, culture, religion, and politics can't be dissected out of the discussion, or we're just masturbating each other, saying, "Gee, isn't that terrible! How could they?"

"no need to roll out your resume"Firstly, you haven’t got my resume, nor anything close to it; no more than I have yours."In my opinion, culture, religion, and politics can't be dissected out of the discussion, or we're just masturbating each other, saying, "Gee, isn't that terrible! How could they?"Of course culture, religion, and politics are integral elements of this discussion, but they are not all encompassing. I am sure the members of this site can discuss FGM, as they have done up till now, without simply reiterating "Gee, isn't that terrible! How could they?"“If you don't want to discuss something, then you are free not to reply. Not every reply to you warrants a reply from you”Lastly, I am aware that not every post to me is deserving of a response from me. (Acceptance of that may be beneficial to you in understanding why I have ignored particular posts of yours in the past)

Firstly, you haven’t got my resume...I'm sure you're very well educated.> no more than I have yoursIt doesn't matter if I dropped out of the fourth grade or if I have two PhD's. Whatever I say stands and falls on it's own, and I'm not nearly as wily as you think I am. I was using no journalistic device.> why I have ignored particular posts of yours in the pastNo problem there.Given the restricted domain of the discussion, I'm not sure what else one can say on the subject.

Well, I see you're still dissecting sentences to suit your own ends; maybe elementary journalistic manoeuvres (or wiles, as you prefer to consider them) come naturally to you?

(** rolls eyes heavenward **)

It's a good thing not all post are answered, or all thread would go on forever.

In reply to: You said, "This is a very sensible take on the Bible. I agree with it."What thor said makes very little sense, unless you have a new definition for "good" and "equal". I'm not really interested in expanding on what he said here. It made sense. If you don't get it...well then you don't. It's no big deal since my comment, while public, was to him.

What Steve's saying is how can you call a slave equal, when they are subject to your command and have restricted freedoms as well as being put on a lower level of class structure, leading them to feel inferior. You can treat them relatively kind, but to treat them the same as everyone else would be to release them so they can be equal, thus making the support of slavery a directly contrasting statement to treating them as equals.

The point that I am making here Steve, is this: If you genuinely disagree, or have some legitimate query with a particular statement that somebody makes, then why the need to dissect that sentence and query just a portion of it?The particular instance I am referring to is pretty trivial in the scheme of things, but you have dissected the content of my posts (and other peoples, that I have witnessed) many many times before now, in a habit of style which takes the original meaning out of all context and, to be honest, becomes quite grating on the nerves.Surely if a statement runs perpendicular to your point of view, it does not make logical sense to dissect it and query just a portion of it? If you disagree with a statement, surely it ought to be with the statement as a whole? But that dismemberment of expression is something of a habit of yours and, being quite senseless as far as I can see, has got to the point where I have to assume you do this for the sake of argument, and nothing more.

but you have dissected the content of my posts (and other peoples, that I have witnessed) many many times before now, in a habit of style which takes the original meaning out of all context and, to be honest, becomes quite grating on the nerves.Sorry, you are mistaken. Most non-trivial statements make more than one assertion, and it's not like three wrong assertions plus seven correct ones lead to a sensible conclusion. It's like a buiding with several bad girders: it tends to collapse.If, for instance, your argument is in part based on an incorrect assumption, and that assumption is shown to be incorrect, then your argument has a serious weakness. The alternative is to say in many words, "No, you're wrong", speaking in generalities.That's logical, isn't it?

Well, I wouldn't expect you to say anything other than that I was mistaken, as you have done (on cue!) which lends weight to my assertion that you comport yourself in this manner simply for arguments sake.

I am discussing your ritual dissection of individual sentences Steve, as in this case, on my having said: "I am dying for some proponent of FGM to come on here voicing ridiculous assertions, though I very much doubt the likelihood of that development!"

You chose to ignore the second part of this sentence, in your response which began "Don't hold your breath for that to happen", as though the comma in this instance was actually a full stop, and nothing came after that. I am quite sure you, and anyone else with half a brain, can understand why this is unnecessary and argumentative on your behalf.

My question to you would be, since this has got to be clear to you, why do you persist with this silly and childish behaviour?

That was an artful response, but once again, wrong. You interpreted my comment as an attack on you ("Duuuh, of course not!"), when if fact it was not. If I tell you it was not, you won't believe me, because you thing you already know what's going on inside my head, and what journalistic devices you think I'm using, and so on. There's no way I can dissuade you. We can go back and forth forever, to no avail. You have it all figured out (right?), so it's pointless.

Really, there's no agenda involved here.

Well, there was nothing artful about your response, I have to say. I think I've said as much as I want to say about this, in any case.