A challenge about women and marriage in Islam

[Violet]

Explain what this sentence means, I know legalization is the removal of a legal prohibition on something, I've never heard of a legalization tool before so I don't know what a logically defendable legalization tool is.

Age as a differential tells us only how old a being is, separating groups of identical beings on a basis of 'how old they are', and not on 'the qualities of <arbitrary>' isn't a logical separation (the beings are capable of the same things). It's the same as creating a 'Race Line' between blacks and whites... same output, yet one is unjustly separated from the other on the basis of an irrelevant difference. What I'm saying: you cannot logically defend doing this, as you're creating a case of special pleading for one of the groups in your separating of it from the other.

I used the 'wrong word' in legalization (though I'd contend it is half-applicable, and that what I meant was perfectly understandable)... 'Legal tool' just sounds weird, there's probably a name for it, but it's not coming to me right now.

As for why it's an economical law: It's simple, and easily enforceable. We all probably agree that an infant should not be voting (though you never know), so there's clearly some point in one's life where they meet our qualifications for voting... now, we could do extensive testing and get our answers nigh-perfectly, but that takes time, it takes money, and it takes accurate psychological and sociological tests to properly illustrate when one possesses a trait in copious-enough levels to meet the arbitrarily-set requirements of <the arbitrary separation>. Way fucking cheaper just to brand them in batches, it's predictable too, which is absolutely great for corporatism.

Just? No. Economical? Absolutely.

Slavery, caste systems, serfdom, and barring 50% of the population from entering the job market (women) is like that too

Who are the law makers and how do you know what the law makers are feeling?

The founders of the nation what come up with the laws there in the first place... and considering all of the other things such people had to think about, I guarantee you it wasn't even on their minds. Even states within America have differing ages of Majority... seriously: have you ever met anyone in your entire life who asked: "why?"

How do I know what the law makers are feeling? My genere is 4X games, my job has been to manage a crew of rebellious teenagers since I was 13. If I didn't think that the nations leaders might be more concerned with a well-oiled machine than with things which have historically been non-issues (women's rights, homosexual's rights, animal's rights), I would have to instead believe that they were horribly freaking incompetent. Or really pressed for time

And I mean, I've only met one other person in my life who gave half a shit about it, but by his reasoning: 'I can get my shit set up behind my parent's backs and achieve most of what I'd like to do with my time'... and in my entire time here (something around 4 years): I've encountered my fair share of people arguing for the special pleading what is age-lines, by <whatever justification>. Of course, you could find such in just about every thread on here... but I've yet to see this issue specifically go any other way.

How do you know what the law makers are asking themselves?

What nonsense have we had on this thread? The statistics? The documented videos? The countries where children are dying after becoming pregnant at such a young age and are being abused because they are at a young age?

I know what the law-makers are *not* asking themselves because of the laws they make, my father's in the local assembly and has been embroiled in politics for basically my entire life, I've had the 'opportunity' to sit in on a few hundred meetings' worth of the Kenai Peninsula Borough's legal operation. That, and I have particular interest in the psychology behind the decisions made therein, paying special attention to the arguments voiced upon a large multitude of the legally-concerned of south-central Alaska. My parents would listen to 'Sound Off' just about every morning; talk-radio where people call up 'the moderator' and voice their opinions and interpretations on 'the topic'... people make laws, and I've been granted unfortunate insight into the process by which they make these Not that ANY of this matters or impacts my arguments in any way under the sun... but you asked, so there it is.

What nonsense: special pleading, (apparently) terrible statistics, videos which do not explain how these abuses are any different from those suffered by women of every age (and often enough, men), countries hit from a symptom of the problems (maybe you'd like to hear about them, or maybe you'll be focused on the symptom as per usual). Oh, there's more nonsense, but I think those are enough to work with for now.

You don't get to dictate what this thread is about, the thread is about the islamic system of marriage, this system allows marriage to a 9 year old, this is what I find disagreeable so I will disagree with it on this thread, you don't get to just say "this isn't about 9 year olds" It is.

And I suppose that you DO get to dictate what this thread is about?

Umm... yes: I do get to say that "this isn't about 9 year olds", since not only is this forum board firmly rooted in it's belief that speech is free: it's even firmly on topic.

Are you ready to tell me what the characteristics of <a being> which allow for the fucking and/or marrying of said being... are? So far it looks like all you've established is that being Islamic and 9 makes one unmarriable and/or unfuckable... how about 8 and Christian?

If I have to do this the hard way of hemming in precisely what is okay with it by guess and check and asking for your beliefs, I'll do it... but just so you know: that takes about 500 times longer than just telling me.

Gays lesbians and bi sexuals have nothing to do with this thread whatsoever, it is about the islamic system of marriage, unless I've been misinformed by a what seems to be the muslim majority, muslims don't seem to keen on gays or lesbians marrying at all, or having sex at all. Although there are debates on even that topic. If you want to start a different thread on whether or not the age of consent should be lowered specifically for gays lesbians and bi sexuals then that's fine I'll debate you on that thread too.

We have a term here for when someone spectacularly misses the point. That term is:

*WOOSH*

Seriously, do I have to mark the references to previously made arguments of *one post ago* to continue and/or elaborate the argument? I refuse: you surely can't be such a child. ADD all over the place here.

You and Germans man... hope neither of you become mods, because you'd split every single thread what has ever been on this forum.

You complain about my sources of data yet the reason you don't believe Muslim scholar is incorrect is because one single solitary Muslim told you that muhammad might not have had sex with a 9 year old.

Historical records on anyones character from this far back will be cloudy at best.
You are making absolutely no point whatsoever because I know a lot of muslims do believe that Muhammad married the girl at age 9 and that Muhammad is a perfect role model, that's all that needs to be said.

The only info you are putting forward here is that you spoke to one muslim who told you muhammad was probably a nice man who probably didn't have sex with a 9 year old...so what?

I complain about your sources of data, and the only reason that I don't believe Muslim scholar is correct is because MASSIVE THEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION was long ago undertaken on the subject, and the conclusion of this is that Mohammad married someone OF AT LEAST 13[b], and the smart money's on "at least 15". And we don't know when this is consummated either.

Neither the bible nor the quran are a secular historical account, they are a theological historical account, and the metric of 'character' is Mohammad's character in the story, which is not likely to be fucking children on the basis of who he is. It'd be like Voldemort marrying a 10 year old Harry Potter instead of attempting to kill him: totally ((Out Of Character)).

Most Christians believe that Jesus was actually born on Christmas... if you want to go with what some Muslims believe as apposed to what educated theologians have deduced from within the text, go right on ahead. Just be aware of what you're doing when you do it.

I wouldn't have thought that I needed to go overmuch into how after 4 years here I might not have a decent understanding of islam

Your asking me if someone I don't know will have still beaten their wife who I don't know, in some sort of magic world where she becomes older than her husband instead of younger. The answer is I don't know.
I would make a guess though that it is easier to beat up a 9 year old, to talk a 9 year old into doing things they don't want to do. Than it would be with a 16 year old for example, this is my opinion of every single person I've ever known ever, that they were less naive at 16 than at 9.

... *laughs*

Naivety ain't got shit to do with it in the case of arranged marriages, it would only be a factor with the pedophile ice cream man attempting to lure a child he doesn't know in. And that's another subject, wouldn't want you to demand I get back on topic.

Older doesn't necessarily mean 'older than them', and I'd not even considered it even, as it's irrelevant to the point: Persons of any age suffer abuses... and the person abusing them is the person who was capable of abuse in the first place, hence what follows: the age of the person being abused can only *at its most* act as a trigger for an already abusive person.

This is a subject of which I have rather more experience than simply witnessing it being done, age might act as the first hook, but the abuser is not deterred by the increase of the person's age. [b]Would someone still have beaten their wife if they were at a different age: in almost every case, yes.

I will stop using them because you have ignored the ones I have given already you don't need to see them again.

That's a rather ignorant way of looking at this... I take it you're not very good at statistics?

I already answered the question on what doesn't make a person fuckable, you try and figure out yourself on what I think would make a person fuckable. And in my opinion the things you say don't matter do matter, sex with someone who is freshly born is out of the question but if you think its ok then that's up to you.

OOH! THE GUESSING GAME! I'm good at this game.

How about... is it a monkey? YES! I KNEW IT WAS A MONKEY!

...

I could not possibly know, because it's a completely subjective value. My observations of what makes a person fuckable are largely based on their ability to communicate their desires, or utter absence of sapience.

What are the things I say don't matter? Age? How does that matter, if you'd care to illustrate this to me?

Sex with someone who is freshly born isn't out of the question if they can effectively communicate a desire to have sex, in my opinion Cloning's gonna shit on age-laws so hard...