Forced marriage parents face jail under new laws in the UK - Polidicks

HEY LET'S STOP THIS DERAIL The problem, of course, is that the police can only get involved if someone comes forward - which isn't very likely.

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36254173]"Why should a woman need to give consent, they are clearly inferior to men?" In 1930's Germany, your sense of morality would be considered just as unacceptable as Neo-Nazi's is today. Would you still hold those views if you were brought up under different circumstances? To think you are fundamentally morally superior to someone else is bordering on Neo-Nazi beliefs so perhaps you would like to rethink your viewpoint.[/QUOTE] No, to kill or harm someone because I think I'm morally superior to them would be bordering on Neo-Nazi beliefs. What I'm doing is engaging in a debate on the internet. If you don't like it, go stick your head in the sand. [QUOTE=Mythman;36254189]Instead of attacking me, why don't you prove that your view of right and wrong are the right ones?[/QUOTE] First why don't you prove to me how forcing a woman into an arranged marriage is morally correct. Or how maiming and killing them for defiance is morally correct.

Morales are subjective, we just have many morales that we all have agreed on, but there is something called human rights which is unrelated to morales and is exactly what's being broken with forced marriage. It is universally and objectively wrong to decide how other people live and there is no way to say that it is right. However this can easily be contradicted with a "but what about children" card, but that's entirely a different thing, because a child is to unaware of what is dangerous and what isn't, it's too inexperienced to not have a certain amount of control imposed on it, however it should always have a say in a case, just easily overruled if it's a say based on inexperience. (and as they grow up they get more and more of a say on things) I believe that actually covered everything you brought up, mythman.

He's trying to show you guys a philisophical argument, he's saying that morality depends on the person and their lifestyle. This act may be seen as unjust by people who arrange forced marrages, or just by people that disagree with it. Not really much of an argument as it is more common sense and since most of us are taught a morality that suggests this is wrong, it was a bit pointless mentioning it. Oh just as a side view, it's about time something like this got through.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36254205]No, to kill or harm someone because I think I'm morally superior to them would be bordering on Neo-Nazi beliefs. What I'm doing is engaging in a debate on the internet. If you don't like it, go stick your head in the sand. [/QUOTE] I'm also arguing if you hadn't noticed from your throne of self-righteousness. Not all Neo-Nazis kill or harm people, we are discussing their viewpoints on morality, not their actions. My point here is that it's foolish to base your actions or views on such an indefinite concept such as morality. Whether you like it or not people's view on morality differ, to merely assume what you've been thought to believe is 'right' leads nowhere and is certainly not a valid argument.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254118]What if according to both your morals and both parties that are getting married it is the true key to a better life? What if the girl actually believed forced marriages was a good thing? Surely it would be just because the consent is there?[/QUOTE] Oh right, the "WHAT IF" argument. You know, the argument that breaks apart reality for a fictional perfect world fit for an argument. Kind of like a strawman argument. Well first of all, if it was so that everyone believed it was a good thing then there would be nothing forced about it because the girl would be willing to marry a stranger, so like you say that would be just. However it's only just if the girl is well informed of a lifestyle without forced marriage as well, if all she knows about is people getting forced marriage, and people telling her forced marriage is good and has never even heard of chosing who to marry, then her opinions hold no grounds, they are not her opinions, she's been taught and learned that opinion, it's not her opinion, it's a forced opinion. Second of all that kind of situation isn't going to happen as no one is happy to be married off for the rest of their lives (with their life threatened if they disobey) to some stranger they've never met. Of course they could end up happy if the guy is actually a good guy, but most likely their chemistry is way off as finding the right guy/girl on the first try is very unlikely. [QUOTE=Mythman;36254118]It isn't flawed, it makes sense if you think about it. We both have the ability to form a sense of morality so both are views are equally valid. To argue one is better than the other is to be a moral supremacist.[/QUOTE] No, one morale/opinion/whatever is more valid than another, simply because one of the parties have stronger arguments for why his/her view is more right that the other party can agree with. I know exactly what you mean, and I half-agree, but it's wrong to say that no one is right and no one is wrong, it's a bit too simple minded and looking at it in very little detail. [QUOTE=The golden;36254298]This isn't about morality though. This is about forcing a person to do something against their will and brutally punishing them if they resist.[/QUOTE] It's about morality. Whether or not people should be allowed to be eaten is also a matter of morality, just to put it at the edge. But it's before that a issue of human rights (which in itself is a morality thing, however regarded as a higher form of it, more bound to rules and rights (objectivity) than what is wrong and what's ok (feelings)).

[QUOTE=dgg;36254231]Morales are subjective, we just have many morales that we all have agreed on, but there is something called human rights which is unrelated to morales and is exactly what's being broken with forced marriage. It is universally and objectively wrong to decide how other people live and there is no way to say that it is right. However this can easily be contradicted with a "but what about children" card, but that's entirely a different thing, because a child is to unaware of what is dangerous and what isn't, it's too inexperienced to not have a certain amount of control imposed on it, however it should always have a say in a case, just easily overruled if it's a say based on inexperience. (and as they grow up they get more and more of a say on things) I believe that actually covered everything you brought up, mythman.[/QUOTE] Yeah pretty much. Although human rights are a western, liberal idea based on western, liberal morals and values so again we go back to the whole idea of moral relativism. But I digress and I shall not derail the thread further. [QUOTE=RagamuffinIIII;36254283]He's trying to show you guys a philisophical argument, he's saying that morality depends on the person and their lifestyle. This act may be seen as unjust by people who arrange forced marrages, or just by people that disagree with it. Not really much of an argument as it is more common sense and since most of us are taught a morality that suggests this is wrong, it was a bit pointless mentioning it. Oh just as a side view, it's about time something like this got through.[/QUOTE] I didn't start this, I was trying to defend the guy who was attacked earlier for raising this point. Maybe I shouldn't have but seeing someone being called dumb for a simple philosophical argument annoyed me.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254328]Although human rights are a western, liberal idea based on western, liberal morals and values so again we go back to the whole idea of moral relativism.[/QUOTE] Okay, so you have no idea what you're actually talking about. Great. "I read in some books that America made the human rights" is all I can think of that made you think something like that.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254118]What if according to both your morals and both parties that are getting married it is the true key to a better life? What if the girl actually believed forced marriages was a good thing? Surely it would be just because the consent is there? [/quote] If a girl believes forced married is a good thing it means that she would want it to happen so it would be the same as an arranged marriage with consent so it wouldn't be forced. Are you seriously this dense

[QUOTE=The golden;36254359]No they're fucking not. The simple act of giving someone the choice of what they do with their person is not a "western" ideal.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mythman;36254328]But I digress and I shall not derail the thread further. [/QUOTE] If you want to continue debating about human rights/morality or whatever just PM. I won't comment on this any further because I see I have seriously derailed this thread. On-topic: This law is a great one, I agree with it and I think it is right.

I love how Mythman stops debating when you guys are presenting good, valid arguments.

[QUOTE=Lost Darkness;36254421]I love how Mythman stops debating when you guys are presenting good, valid arguments.[/QUOTE] Oh jeez. I can continue if everyone wants to but I don't fancy turning this thread into a further crap-storm.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254444]Oh jeez. I can continue if everyone wants to but I don't fancy turning this thread into a further crap-storm.[/QUOTE] Then use sensible arguments and it won't

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36254288]I'm also arguing if you hadn't noticed from your throne of self-righteousness. Not all Neo-Nazis kill or harm people, we are discussing their viewpoints on morality, not their actions. My point here is that it's foolish to base your actions or views on such an indefinite concept such as morality. Whether you like it or not people's view on morality differ, to merely assume what you've been thought to believe is 'right' leads nowhere and is certainly not a valid argument.[/QUOTE] And so believing my view points are right make me just as bad as Neo Nazi's. That's good to know. Though I'm sure you'd change your tune if someone melted your face with acid. It's easy to call someone self righteous when you're sitting comfortably at home and don't have to suffer the consequences of those other "equally valid view points"

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254328] Although human rights are a western, liberal idea[/QUOTE] except many of the human rights in the west did not start in the west. the right to vote started in the mediterranean region and many of today's human rights began in the islamic world.

I am arguing from a moral relativist point of view. It is an accepted and valid philosophical line of argument. Human rights are grounded in Liberalism and the idea that every human is rational. Since humans are rational and born equal they should share foundational equality (human rights). If someone disagrees with these premises (Conservatives, Fascists and other 'rightist' ideologies) then they are not going to agree with human rights. Also, if a persons view of right and wrong differs from that of a liberal then they are not going to accept the liberal idea of inalienable human rights. I am arguing from a philosophical level of abstraction and I am not referring to the real world 'UN human rights'. EDIT: I am not arguing about the right to vote or the right to be free. I am arguing about the IDEA of inalienable rights and how they are ultimately based upon one set of moral values.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36254539]And so believing my view points are right make me just as bad as Neo Nazi's. That's good to know. Though I'm sure you'd change your tune if someone melted your face with acid. It's easy to call someone self righteous when you're sitting comfortably at home and don't have to suffer the consequences of those other "equally valid view points"[/QUOTE] Yes, you claim with conviction that you are 'right' much as Neo-Nazis, among others often do. They [B]are[/B] equally valid, I don't have agree with them to accept them. I'm not saying it shouldn't be stopped, I'm just saying that arguments based on morality can't be won by either side because, as you've so clearly demonstrated, people don't like listening to other people's opinions. I called you self-righteous because you told me to 'put my head in the sand' for trying to argue against your reasoning, such inability to accept criticism wont do you any favors in any debate. Are you currently sitting in the middle of a sectarian warzone? Have you grown up being taught that forced marriage is acceptable? Understanding is the only way to influence others' views, trying to force people to accept your view without a coherent argument achieves nothing.

You both sound like you're trying to justify that morals are viewed differently for each individual, and as such how people are treated can only be decided by these different viewpoints. Point is there's this thing called 'common sense' where the majority of the human race is on the same wavelength of what's good and bad. Sort of the same as a child crying over a bruised knee, or laughing at a hug from a parent. You can easily tell what's 'good', what's 'bad', etc.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254587] I am arguing about the IDEA of inalienable rights [/QUOTE] and like i said before inalienable rights date back to even the fucking code of hammurabi. i disagree on that basis that liberalism or human rights are simply western concepts, liberalism in the west is about a lot more than simply human rights.

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36254663]Yes, you claim with conviction that you are 'right' much as Neo-Nazis, among others often do. They [B]are[/B] equally valid, I don't have agree with them to accept them. I'm not saying it shouldn't be stopped, I'm just saying that arguments based on morality can't be won by either side because, as you've so clearly demonstrated, people don't like listening to other people's opinions. I called you self-righteous because you told me to 'put my head in the sand' for trying to argue against your reasoning, such inability to accept criticism wont do you any favors in any debate.[/QUOTE] I told you to put your head in the sand because you refused to argue against my reasoning. Instead retreating back to your sheltered view point of the world, and calling me a Neo Nazi. It's not my fault you equate debate with fascism.

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36254173]"Why should a woman need to give consent, they are clearly inferior to men?"[/quote] what does this quote have to do with anything [quote]In 1930's Germany, your sense of morality would be considered just as unacceptable as Neo-Nazi's is today.[/quote] And 1930's Germany would be [I]wrong[/I]. [quote]Would you still hold those views if you were brought up under different circumstances?[/quote] "If you were a different person and had different views, would you have different views? Yes, you would have different views. Therefore, I am right." [quote]To think you are fundamentally morally superior to someone else is bordering on Neo-Nazi beliefs so perhaps you would like to rethink your viewpoint.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between thinking you're fundamentally better than someone else and that someone else [I]being wrong[/I]. You guys are arguing "Well, other people might not think it's wrong! So you can't say that it's wrong." My response: It's still wrong, and the people who don't think so are wrong too. Oh my! Multiple things being wrong! my brain can't take it blergh

[QUOTE=Lost Darkness;36254683] Point is there's this thing called 'common sense' where the majority of the human race is on the same wavelength of what's good and bad. Sort of the same as a child crying over a bruised knee, or laughing at a hug from a parent. You can easily tell what's 'good', what's 'bad', etc.[/QUOTE] That's true to a certain extent, but if you are brought up to believe Jewish people are fundamentally inferior and inhuman, your common sense wont always prevail and you may end up doing some terrible things. You have to base actions on something more concrete than a general sense of what is 'right'.

[QUOTE=Lost Darkness;36254683] Point is there's this thing called 'common sense' where the majority of the human race is on the same wavelength of what's good and bad. [/QUOTE] bullllllllshit. common sense isn't a real tangible quality.

The FOB Indian and Pakistani communities let out a collective burst of tears when they heard this.

[QUOTE=Mythman;36254587]I am arguing from a moral relativist point of view. It is an accepted and valid philosophical line of argument. Human rights are grounded in Liberalism and the idea that every human is rational. Since humans are rational and born equal they should share foundational equality (human rights). If someone disagrees with these premises (Conservatives, Fascists and other 'rightist' ideologies) then they are not going to agree with human rights. Also, if a persons view of right and wrong differs from that of a liberal then they are not going to accept the liberal idea of inalienable human rights. I am arguing from a philosophical level of abstraction and I am not referring to the real world 'UN human rights'.[/QUOTE] Well I'm talking about the more universal human right point of view that everyone should be able to make their own decisions over their own lives as long as it doesn't hurt others. Not the liberal human rights where everyone should be treated equally, have the same possibilities and such, as that starts becoming a political thing. Treating people equally when nobody is actually equal is actually treating people differently. Also human rights aren't necessarily grounded in liberalism, but liberalism is the ones that believes in it the most. [QUOTE=Mythman;36254587]EDIT: I am not arguing about the right to vote or the right to be free. I am arguing about the IDEA of inalienable rights and how they are ultimately based upon one set of moral values.[/QUOTE] And I completely agree with you on that. However, no matter how you look at it, there is no such thing as owning another person (same with animals, although we are easily double moralistic on that part because we like to think we aren't animals for some reason), and as such there is no such thing as rightfully deciding what others should do against their will. No matter how you look at it, no human being would actually think it's right, however they will easily overlook the wrong of it for the benefits it gives, treating it like a trade. Survival and greed easily overshadows our morale. But it's hard to properly counter-argument you on this, because again I really do agree with you on this point. To bring up the cannibalism point earlier on again, whether or not it's ok to eat human flesh is just a matter of morale and nothing else.

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36254711]That's true to a certain extent, but if you are brought up to believe Jewish people are fundamentally inferior and inhuman, your common sense wont always prevail and you may end up doing some terrible things. You have to base actions on something more concrete than a general sense of what is 'right'.[/QUOTE] Perhaps. But then that does depend from person to person, their ignorance, their understanding, or lack of it, of different nations, and so forth. I'm simply referring to human nature itself, not the differences in cultures. I am literally breaking it down to is pain nice, or nasty?

[QUOTE=Lost Darkness;36254797] I am literally breaking it down to is pain nice, or nasty?[/QUOTE] in that case is anything that is painful immoral and ultimately wrong under any circumstance?

[QUOTE=thisispain;36254833]in that case is anything that is painful immoral and ultimately wrong under any circumstance?[/QUOTE] I've yet to meet someone who wants pain simply for pain. Pleasure, reactions, anything that branches off or leads to a goal, has a purpose; pain simply as pain is naturally undesired.

Ok, we have some agreement. I was wrong to say that human rights are a strictly liberal idea. I should have said that human rights are generally an 'enlightened' (aka coming from the Enlightenment period) idea. If you believe that human are fundamentally, essentially the same then everyone would agree to inalienable human rights. The point I was trying to put across was that if you do not consider all humans equal then you will disagree with human rights. Fascists believe in an infallible leader who can take decisions on other peoples behalf because he is morally or intellectually superior. If you believe humans and their nature are imperfect like Conservatives then you would say the wiser need to guide the less wise. In these cases you would say that some people are superior to others and due to this human rights due to fundamental equality need not apply. You cannot let others have the same rights as you (the infallible leader or the wiser man) since you know best. I hope that makes some modicum of sense. (It is 3am here so I might not be very coherent).

[QUOTE=Lost Darkness;36254797]Perhaps. But then that does depend from person to person, their ignorance, their understanding, or lack of it, of different nations, and so forth. I'm simply referring to human nature itself, not the differences in cultures. I am literally breaking it down to is pain nice, or nasty?[/QUOTE] But people's actions and how they treat others is influenced by their cultural background. Some people might enjoy causing pain to others, which would lead them to believe they are acting in a morally acceptable way.