A challenge about women and marriage in Islam

[Violet]

I can't see anything in any of the links I posted that

1 Wasn't true.
2 Made any generalized statements about Muslims.

I simply posted facts about what happens in countries where Muslims are allowed to marry 9 year olds.

Because India and Nepal are just hotbeds for Muslim law?

Maybe it wasn't the links you posted, but what you said that made generalized statements about Muslims. But just so we're clear, the videos are pretty anti-Islamic.

I disagree, I don't think anyone should be stoned to death or have their hands cut off. I don't need to see statistics on crime to know I don't believe in literally throwing rocks at someone until they are dead as a form of punishment.

Here's another example of opinion without telling us anything. WHY do you believe that stoning is not an applicable death sentence for a heinous crime? WHY do you believe that cutting off someone's hand(s) for thievery is not a worthy sentence?

I shouldn't need to explain this to anyone why someone who is taller with bigger muscles is less vulnerable than someone who is small with small muscles think about why in boxing they have weight classes, think about why in prison they have young offenders and adult prisons, think about why most club security workers will be bigger and more muscular than the average person.

I shouldn't need to explain this to anyone why someone who is taller with bigger muscles is more vulnerable than someone who is small with small muscles think about why in war tall people get butchered by guns, think about when a person is running away and they're faced with a small gap between them and freedom why a large person won't make it, think about why people evolved to be of a moderate height in the first place.

Well I have thought about why in boxing there are weight classes: because the people who thought up boxing want to make more money. There are weight classes in wrestling too, but even though I am 3/4ths (or less) the weight of my bother carey and my father... we're fairly evenly matched. I believe weight classes to be a cop-out in a every sport in which they are present. There is a goal in the sport, and the only thing that matters is that those playing attempt to achieve said goal. Certainly, you'll see fewer light-weighted people in the sport, but that's to be expected where weight is thrown around.

I have thought of why in prisons there are adult and juvenile prisons, and it's not because of age-laws, but these are particularly a mistake under this circumstance. If a 17 year old commits a serious crime, I seriously think he should probably be in the adult prison. If a 12 year old commits a serious crime, I often think he should probably be in the adult prison. The reason these populations are segregated at all is that we question putting someone in prison that we believe cannot make decisions for themselves. Really, I think that they don't do kids enough credit in most cases.

The fact I am explaining this very basic thing to you proves to me that you're in denial about something. Or just simply trolling this thread.

The fact I am explaining this very basic thing to you proves to me... well, nothing. I have never yet trolled you, at the most: I have repeated your statements to you to demonstrate how ridiculous they are. And I can't even do that, since I cringe at the stupidity I'm writing, and modify the statements to be, well... less stupid.

go to google and type "why is education important for children"

So, you really don't know why education is important to children? You really have no conceptualization of how one's goal modifies values? You really don't have any recognition of
of how education might not be important for children? You seriously don't understand how utterly worthless the education of basic arithmetic and language is... how little will be remembered of their education from their life under a memorization-testing system as apposed to an ability-testing system?


I've gone in front of my tenth grade class and winged a presentation on why reading isn't important, and I got an A for it without even having written the paper we were supposed to write on the subject. I know this subject matter very well, and maybe I could even teach you something on the subject, or perhaps I might learn something even more about it through discussing it with you (I have serious doubts of that)
... but all you give me is "google it"?

You're a cop-out.

Considering that without medical schools (education) only very primitive surgery would exist anyway the evidence is self explanatory.

Sure, university specialization is fantastic for whatever you want to learn to do... but we're talking about 9 year old education, are we not? Shall I pull one of your little techniques and say 'I never brought up university-level education, and if you think 9 year olds are capable of it'- oh I can't even finish it, because it's just that rude and pointless.

General education is utterly pointless in every case. If you'd care to demonstrate to me the instance where geography will do shit for a doctor, or where basic anatomical study will do shit for a mathematician: I'd be impressed.

That and the fact education reduces poverty, helps people get jobs, again this is another point I shouldn't have to explain unless you are in denial or trolling the thread.

These: you will have to find me data.

Places without ANY EDUCATION SYSTEM AT ALL (read that over again, and once more till you get it) still have jobs, and the people within these communities are not unemployed by anything except choice. How does a childhood basic education reduce poverty? Hell, even university education has people seriously in debt for a good decade (or more) if they didn't already have a bunch of money.

I *should* have to explain the nuances of what I say if I pop out the gate with a shit ton of opinion... and ah: zero data. I can bring up data to back up these things that I've just said, can you find this yourself? I imagine the first point and second point are at their best indirectly related, given that without the existence of 'education' at all: people survived into the stone age, and you don't actually need any education that you can't find *at your job* in MOST jobs.

Consider that we survived without C sections for longer than we survived without education and good parenting.

Sure, but given that the idea's been around for, oh... at as long as aqueducts, and significantly before anyone thought to educate the peasant class... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean_section#History this way, even if the mother dies during childbirth: you often still get the baby alive and well (hence, the mother's role in propagation of the species was not stoppered).

Modern C-sections are a life-saving technology that allow mothers to continue their role in propagation of the species when they would ordinarily have died. This is a moderate surgery, and the absence of it is a primary factor in modern maternal death. Having basic arithmetic is NOT a factor, it is modern medical facilities manned by modern medical doctors that these countries are lacking in. How about if we look at another statistic to see how the doctors in these countries are doing, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...ality_rate



These are deaths within one year of live birth per 1000 births. Maybe it's startling that the same offenders of maternal death are also those who struggle at keeping babies alive. Let's just see another, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_mortality

http://www.childinfo.org/mortality_ufmrcountrydata.php

Chad, afganistan, somalia... we're looking at a very similar list to before. One interesting thing is that *even in the worst countries in the world for child mortality: only a third of the number who died fifty years ago are dying today.* This is in the places with the worst medical technology in the world. Now, let's run a little experiment: does economics impact whether or not people are dying in your nation?

http://chartsbin.com/view/2438

Imagine that... an almost identical graph.

Hypothesis: economics is the single most important factor in medical infrastructure and high-tier education. That is to say: economy, being the basis of both infrastructure and education, saves more lives than good parenting, medical science (wholly), and nine-year old education combined (infact, expand that to all of general education).

Not that you've yet demonstrated what parenting has to do with saving lives at all, of course

This would be like searching through google to find data on "Do I have two eyes?" I have never searched for it or found data on it because it is obvious.

I don't see how searching through google to find data on whether or not you have two eyes is comparable to the determining vulnerabilities exposed to you by the possession of two eyes. For instance... I was just out working, and I stood up quickly, and a few inches in front of my eyes is this iron rebar jutting out that could have easily fucked my eye up if I had been but a few inches forward of where I was. That's a vulnerability of having my eyes as a pair on each side of my head, without good upward periphery vision

Now, if you're quite done complaining about what is or is not obvious, I will ask you again: We arrive at the ALL IMPORTANT QUESTION: What has differed between a 9 year old, 30 year old, and 80 year old that allows for an identical abuse they experience to be greater or lesser? What *vulnerabilities* are expressly prevalent in 9 year olds that are not found (to the same extent) in 15 year olds or 30 year olds; why are these vulnerabilities greater or lesser than those of 15 or 30 year olds; and do you possess any data that backs up your analysis?

I have never known anyone in my entire life who was as strong, tall and muscular at age 9 as they were at age 16.

Stunted growth, disease, just about everyone wheelchair bound, midgets, etc. What, you've never known any of these people? 0.o You know OF them, yes?

Not by a small difference either, everyone I've ever known was much less weak, less vulnerable at age 16 than at age 9. Apart from in exceptional circumstances for example if they died at age 10. Yet another obvious point I shouldn't need to explain or find statistics on.
Puberty increases strength and height, most people complete puberty around the ages of 14-16

You don't know all that many people, do you Paul? The very wide majority of people I've ever known have been weaker on terms of physical strength and what physical force they are capable of outputting. However, these people are nearly identically vulnerable at 16 as they are at nine, and they are nearly identically vulnerable at 9 as they are at 30.

"Yet another obvious point I shouldn't need to explain or find statistics on." Only... I'll actually explain this stuff, right down to the roots.

Puberty also increases sex drive and hormone levels in a body, which is quite a serious weakness that few five year olds suffer from. Not to mention pimples.

Women are easier to abuse than men but it has nothing to do with the holes in them as you put it, it's because they are typically smaller and less muscular than men.

That's even better. Are you omitting all potential forms of abuse for sake of argument without telling me? Because I am *not* omitting emotional, financial, social, sexual, physical, familial, psychological, or physiological abuses... certainly: there are cases where a woman is easier to abuse than that same individual would have been as a man specifically due to being *slightly* smaller and/or less muscular, but there are also certainly cases where a man is easier to abuse than that same individual would have been as a woman due to being *slightly* larger and/or more muscular.

The reality of abuse is that while a victim of abuse might possess atributes which ease some strains upon the abuser (stupid people might be easier to financially abuse than smart people, smaller people may take less preparation to physically abuse than larger people, sensitive people may be easier to elicit screams from or otherwise neutralize via sexual abuse), and certain qualities might assist in triggering an otherwise non-abuser to commit abuses (an attractive person is more at risk of triggering abuses from a horny person than one this person finds unattractive): It is ultimately the abuser, and what said abuser is capable of doing... that is the deciding factor in whether or not another person will be abused or not. The size difference between humans is typically not severe (a couple of feet, and maybe 100-200 pounds difference? As someone who works construction, fishing, and farming... if THIS is the difference between you abusing someone or not: you're a fucking pansy.), and the muscles of a person being abused should not matter, given that an abuser has the jump upon the abused.

So have you also noticed that all these places with poor education and poor medical facilities are the places which have a lot of child pregnancies?

The list was of *child and teenager marriages*, honey. Reading comprehension, I swear man. The places where CHILD PREGNANCY is the most common is where humans are trafficked to (and I'm considering 'childhood' as roughly between 2 and 10, I'll even explain my reasoning for this, but come off it: if you were interested, you would have asked long ago). And if they manage to survive this ordeal... they're very lucky indeed. TEENAGE pregnancy, and TEENAGE marriage, are quite other matters altogether. Given that most teenagers are fertile: it should come as no surprise that there is a significant amount of teenage pregnancy which corresponds to teenage marriage. I have this data too, I'll put it down in the post a bit.

But then, we wouldn't be talking about 9 year olds, would we? We would be talking about (11?, 12?) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 year olds. Not that it matters according to my question (at what point do they become fuckable/marriagable, why?). Why don't you answer that instead of rambling on about nonsense like this?

Anyway, here is teenage pregnancies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy



FYI: grey means 'no data recorded', so this is pretty shoddy as far as graphs go.

As opposed to less poor places with better education which don't allow 9 year children to be married or decide to leave education?

Did you consider that?

Considering what the places in question have for 'education', you might want to consider what you just said.

Hell, most women in said countries are culturally expected to not complete even this basic general education. Hence this isn't a question of even economics... it's cultural. You disagree with a people's culture? Because clearly what they're doing is wrong, what savages they are!

Use your head, paul: these are MORAL standpoints, nothing else. You're assuming that everyone else has the same goals as you, faces the same situation as you, believes as you do.

I was asleep when you typed this so I don't know how could have ignored or not ignored me when I had typed nothing at this point in time for you to even look at, just more babble basically.

Because I tell you why I'm posting but not responding to your post quite yet so as to not offend you: you get offended?

My... bloody... gods... on... high. You really are this thick, ain'tcha?