Israeli newspapers Photo-shop out female Cabinet ministers

The difference being ofcourse that none of these women were killed. Its not hypocrisy, just common sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The hypocrisy has nothing to do with being killed or not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lets see: comparing a couple of women being photoshopped out of 2 newspapers to a conflict that has cost 1000s of lives. Its not the same

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That not what I'm comparing: SAM stated they should be allowed to believe that images of women are wrong, but when it comes to their belief that the west bank is theirs, SAM objects.

 

Because one of those has cost 1000s of lives. Thats the difference between saying that if they want to believe that in their country, thats fine, and saying that killing a lot of people is wrong. In the end, whenever someone is killed, it is hard to tolerate that.

 

Belief does not cost lives, action does, you can disagree with their actions but you can't say everyone entitled to their belief and then disagree with their belief at the same time. For example I believe the whole human race should be wiped out and replaced with a suitable successor once the technology is available, by SAM logic I'm entitled to that belief.

 

And as long as thats just your belief thats fine. But when you carry out that belief by killing everyone, then people will step in. Thats the difference between whats acceptable and or tolerable and whats not.

 

This is surprising? The ultar-cons live in communes with lifestyles so alien that we would barely recognize them. Weird hats. Oppressed women. Arranged marriages. No movies, internet, TV.

Anyway, who cares? People can edit whatever pictures they want. More power to them.

~String

 

Again the hypocrisy is the belief no the action, I'm entitled to my belief, its action that objectionable, not the belief. The ultra-conservative Jews are entitled to their belief of ownership of the west bank but you can object to their action of trying to realize that belief, SAM response though was to object to their belief, thus hypocrisy.

 

I dont think Sam would have a problem with them had they just kept their belief without acting out in a way which cost so many people their lives. A lot of people have beliefs that may seem strange or weird to us. The Shia part of my large family does some things I find strange, but I dont have a problem with them believing that. There is a difference between accepting and or tolerating what other people believe when theres no harm or killing involved, but if they try to carry out that belief through violence, then it is possible to criticize them for that without being a hypocrite.

 

Their is a difference between beliefs that mainly effect people within that belief structure and beliefs that mainly effect those without.

 

I would have been one of those 'ultraconservatives' to leave. Though I don't consider it so extreme, it just seems moral to me to not see other women scantly dressed...especially if married. It's all just a way of living. Even today I intentionally don't near sorority houses, nor do I go to parties where potentially whorish women will be. Some people think less of those who don't practice the same, I personally have lots of friends who go to those parties. Simply I was raised in a household where my family covered themselves to their shoulders and their knees not necessarily in religious abidance...they just felt more comfortable doing so.

It should be noted that they don't mind if women are serving in power; had they been wearing hair coverings they probably wouldn't have been edited out.

 

so your bigotry is hypocrisy as well.

 

Howso? I never criticized the Muslim idea of covering the hair, and I surely never criticized their emphasis on modesty. I probably have criticized how they impose modesty laws. Where's the bigotry or hypocrisy? In this case it's ME leaving, not me forcing THEM to leave.

 

Yes. Not at all representative of the mainstream.

 

You yourself have crapped on Islam for its views on woman's modesty( the bigotry because not all Muslims believe that though a lot do) but you yourself hold archaic views toward female modesty that while different in degree are the same in principle(the hypocrisy)

 

I wouldn't do that...because I don't disagree with them. So you're lying to yourself, that is unless you can find a single citation of me insulting the modesty issue.

To what degree should it be imposed and enacted?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This seems to some degree an inconvenience to their daily lives.

Compared to.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also compare the lawful punishments in comparison.

Criminal behavior as compared to no punishment is quite different...


Further...
Removing the woman from the situation vs. removing yourself from the situation is quite different.

 

The only difference, of course, as "primitive" as these ultra Orthodox Jews are, they don't stone women to death or cut infidels' throats with rusty jaded knives.

Minor difference you seemed to have missed.

 

Nah they just beat up 50 year old women for not moving to the back of the bus with the other women, halt movie productions that involve kissing, build cages around and stone Arabs and Palestinians when they come out of their homes, try to blow up the Mosque and shrine on the Temple Mount, have "modesty patrols" that harass and assault people etc etc.

 

Even the deliberately grossly distorted version of things that you've just presented is about a billion times more civilized than the quality and quantity of Islamic extremism. Now go suck it, world champion.