Saturday, November 7, 2009
adulterer stoned to death
In Somali a adulterer was stoned to death in front of a crowd of 300 people. This man was only 33 years old and his pregnant girlfriend is to be killed after she has the baby. This is disgusting that not only are people still tortured so in-humanly in this day but that 300 people wanted to watch this horrible act. The man was stoned to death for 7 minutes... this means that these 300 people were watching a human being brutally murdered for 7 whole minutes. I personally couldn't and wouldn't want to watch a human being tortured for a second. This is the 3rd time a person has been stoned to death because of adultery this year. Last year a 13 year old girl was stoned to death because she was accused of adultery, when actually she was raped. This is incredibly disturbing. I can't believe humans do this to other humans. Something needs to be done to stop this atrocity. go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8347216.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Sigh.. What is there that we can do to stop this? Its really depressing news. Whats even worse is that people don't turn a blind eye but instead enjoy it. I mean I guess I could see whats fun in watching something like a Gladiator fighting in a ring but stoning someone to death?
But hey, it's condoned by the bible so s'all good, right? (The correct answer is no...)
It's really disturbing that 300 people would gather to watch this atrocity almost like a sport. It almost reminds me of the Roman gladiators... sigh. We are a cruel race, us humans.
I wouldn't cry if the girl who cheated on me (not raped) was stoned to death. I'd just walk away.
Would any of you dare save the person who cheated on you?
I don't see any justification for rescuing cheaters.
While gladitorial tournaments are not the most civil sport in the world, I'm surprised most of you don't support it.
When you watch sports on tv - whether it be football, basketball, etc. - aren't you watching it for the intensity and excitement of the sport?
Well, then it doesn't get any more intense and exciting than gladitorial tournaments.
Watching a football player chasing and tackling another player is less intense and exciting than watching a gladiator chase down and land a killing blow on another gladiator.
I see football and other similar sports as "watered down" versions of arena combat in terms of violence.
What's sad about this event is that there really isn't much we can do to help. We can't send escorts to protect every adulterer or adulteress in places where things like this happen. Inhumane as it is, stoning someone to death happens and has been happening. It's an extremely cruel form of torture.
this is very dissapointing! I mean violence keeps picking up fom here and i feel like veryday this is all we continue to hear about.First thegirl in richmond the boy in chicago and now this! What is it with people! violence should never be a option!
So i guess what we're all saying and concluding is that this torture/death in Somali is extremely cruel, but there is nothing that we can do about it huh?
Oh. I didn't even know that stoning someone to death was still a type of torture today.
Ok, first of all, this makes me sick. I can't believe people still resort to these tactics as punishments for crimes.
Secondly, Kevin, I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience in the past or something, but I don't think that walking away from someone getting stoned helps the situation. That's like what those guys in the mob in Richmond did. They just watched the atrocity unfold before their eyes and didn't even bother to do anything about it.
Yes, I agree that cheating is wrong. We all know that, but I don't think (at least I hope not) anyone would want to have the person that cheated on them stoned.
Yeah, I agree with Jodi.. this sounds kind of similar to the homecoming story, but the fact that 300 people were watching and didn't do anything is very horrifying..
"Yes, I agree that cheating is wrong. We all know that, but I don't think (at least I hope not) anyone would want to have the person that cheated on them stoned."
If your boyfriend or girlfriend cheated on you, would you help him/her?
The issue is not wishing for him/her to be stoned, but whether or not you should help someone who turned his/her back on you.
I'm surprised at your sympathetic attitudes towards cheaters.
"I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience in the past or something"
Just to clarify things, I've never been in a relationship.
Kevin, I'm afraid I disagree with your system of morality. Is it moral to watch someone that cheated on you be stoned to death? No. Was it moral for someone to cheat on you in the first place? No.
I'm very against the death penalty, because it does very little good (and yes, if my family was killed I would still be against it). The argument for it is generally "it gives a feeling of justice to the victim's family".
First, I'd challenge anyone to give me a practical, not idealistic, definition of justice. It is not "everyone gets what they deserve" because that is not practical, that is impossible.
The word that should replace "justice" in the argument is actually "retribution", which is really very similar to "revenge"; the only difference is that the victim's family does not carry out the act of vengeance themselves, but it is left to another. So, in reality, the death penalty exists so that we can satisfy a desire to experience a very ugly emotion.
Some say that it is "righteous" to enforce the death penalty. "An eye for an eye", so to speak. But what is righteousness? It is an emotion that makes its owner unable to conceive that he is wrong. It is irrational, and totally useful. In this case, it simply supports another murder. When anyone says "I am Righteous", what they are actually saying is: "I am unable to conceive that I am wrong in this issue, and will accept no criticism of my position; I am absolutely right, and anyone standing against me is absolutely wrong."
So far, the family of the murderer has not even been mentioned. They are not entitled to "retribution" supported by "righteousness". Probably not, but logic dictates that they should. Also, it seems that the "criminal"'s ability to change has not been mentioned. Human beings aren't concrete; we change. I am not who I was 2 years ago, or even 2 minutes ago, simply because my thoughts and experiences change and accumulate. People can improve, but the death penalty ensures that they do not have the opportunity to actually atone for their crimes.
The Death Penalty increases misery; and in a pragmatic, happiness based moral system, this is wrong. If you can suggest a moral system based on something other than happiness (but we all want to be happy, so happiness is probably the best choice for a rational moral system), I'm all ears.
So, how does this relate to stoning? Well, it's pretty basic. It counters the death penalty, making the actions of those that cast the stones (and those who watch or leave the others to die) morally reprehensible.
Kevin, if you have an argument supporting your condemnation of a "cheater", that totally overrules me, I would be interested to hear it.
Also, Kevin, I find your statement that we'd enjoy gladiatorial bloodsport insulting. Perhaps I'm out of line, but I feel like you're looking down on the entire human community. We do watch sports for the intensity, but we don't watch them for the blood. I play water polo because I enjoy it, and I enjoy the intensity. Do I go out looking for blood? No, actually I end up making jokes with the other team while we lose.
A quick clarification on my definition of morality. A moral act is an act that promotes happiness by either increasing happiness, maintaining happiness, or reducing unhappiness without unnecessarily decreasing the happiness of another. The decreasing of one's happiness is only acceptable when they are attempting to decrease another's happiness, however, happiness should not be decreased more than deemed necessary.
Under this definition, you should help the person being stoned, because their happiness is being decreased beyond what is necessary, to the point where all potential for happiness is eliminated. The group of people stoning the "cheater" is at fault because of this, so their happiness ought to be decreased by saving the "cheater".
I agree. I find this extremely disturbing. Okay sure, he committed adultery, but its his life. Other people shouldn't really care especially if it doesn't affect them, like in this case with 300 observers. Why would anyone in his or her right mind choose to watch a man get stoned to death? It just doesn't make sense. Was this form of torture some cultural thing?
Something definitely needs to be done, but as much as we would like something to be done, I don't see any possible ways. I agree that it is impossible to protect every adulterer. The government is what needs to be changed. Apparently in this country, this form of torturing is allowed. I think that would be the first step in seeing any changes.
Also, why would they kill the mother of the baby being born? Then they are just going to have a parentless baby with no one to take care of it. Clearly there are some major problems that need to be fixed.
And people complain that my posts are long.
"First, I'd challenge anyone to give me a practical, not idealistic, definition of justice."
If you insist, here's my pragmatic, rough definition:
To bring as much of a closure as possible to the victim of the crime. Accorded by the magnitude of the pain brought on by the crime.
"So, in reality, the death penalty exists so that we can satisfy a desire to experience a very ugly emotion."
-When someone is assaulted, rape, killed, etc., the victim or the people who know the victim are left with a myriad of negative emotions.
-Better to settle the emotions through retribution than to let it continue; continuation only perpetuates misery.
-When you send a criminal to jail, it is done out of vengeance, but it doesn't always satisfy it. Death penalty does a admirable job of that.
"It is an emotion that makes its owner unable to conceive that he is wrong."
-Going by YOUR definition, then you are correct. Your definition best describes ignorance, not righteousness.
-Righteousness is the actual state of being right; not when one thinks he/she is right. So when a person says 2+2=4, he/she is righteous, but when a person proclaims that all men are aggressive without listening to anyone else, then he/she is being ignorant.
-When other proponents of death penalty speak of righteousness, they speak of justice; which comes in a form of retribution.
" They are not entitled to "retribution" supported by "righteousness"."
- Of course not (I am assuming that you are talking about the death of the murderer); the murderer was the only who catalyzed the murder; it was ultimately him/her who spread HIS/HER misery to his/her family.
" Human beings aren't concrete; we change."
-So? The crime is still done; that cannot be changed. The murderer might change, but the victim is still left with a void from the crime for as long as justice is not served.
-If you cannot forget a crime, then you cannot forgive a crime. And the "crime" in this context is cheating - definately something that cannot be forgotten.
"The Death Penalty increases misery; and in a pragmatic, happiness based moral system, this is wrong."
-The level of misery is not being increased. If the death penalty is not administered, then both the victim's family and the murderer's family will still be miserable. But when the murderer shares the same fate as his/her victim, then the victim's family will find more solace for the death of the victim.
"Kevin, if you have an argument supporting your condemnation of a "cheater","
- You owe those who betray or resent you nothing.
Who was it that brought the bitter divide into a relationship? The cheater. This bitter wall divides the two, and prevents them from interacting.
-It would not be right on the part of the victim to help those that betrayed or resented him/her. That leaves the victim of the cheat with nothing - the negative emotions are still left within him/her.
-I'm sure you have heard the saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". The victim was already fooled once into a relationship. Helping the cheater is allowing the victim to be exploited for the second time.
"...reducing unhappiness without unnecessarily decreasing the happiness of another."
-Because the former outcomes are not possible in a murder, this is the best one that can happen. SOMETIMES, the death penalty is needed to accomplish this outcome. It reduces the unhappiness of the victim's party, and it doesn't "unnecessarily decreasing the happiness of another" because the murderer had already done most of that.
"The decreasing of one's happiness is only acceptable when they are attempting to decrease another's happiness, however, happiness should not be decreased more than deemed necessary."
-That's why murder happens in the first place. The would-be murderer goes to kill somebody who is happy because he/she is unhappy in the first place. If everyone in the world was happy, there would be no murder.
"We do watch sports for the intensity, but we don't watch them for the blood."
-Gladitorial tournaments provide the same intensity (adrenaline pumps, heart beats faster,etc.), but with greater magnitude (More adrenaline pumps, heart beats even faster, etc.). You are right about the fact that people don't watch it for the blood; that's not my argument. I am arguing that arenas provide more intensity than "dumbed-down" sports.
Hmm, every time I see your arguments, it reminds me of how I used to be.
I used to be horrified at the death penalty, and wanted it banned. I used to support just about EVERYTHING all of you supported - fight against global warming, pro-gay rights, ban on hunting, aversiveness to bloodsports and many other issues.
But of course, I converted to the other side - passiveness towards global warming, neutrality towards homosexuality, tolerance on hunting and bloodsports.
It was only after taking a long and hard thought and consideration that I realized I might have been wrong. A sort of veil was lifted once I saw the other side of the argument - it was then that I realized that maybe I was ignorant.
If someone was to comment on me, he/she would have said that I'm a fallen angel or something. But of course, that's just his/her opinion. Besides, I don't see how I can go back even if I wanted to.
That being said, does anyone care to join me? All it takes is to think continuously about the other side of the argument.
How can human beings be so cruel and watch people be stoned to death and not do anything about it? It is so disturbing. I can't believe they still use this type of torture in certain parts of the world. It is so sad. Seven minutes is a really long time to be watching this tragedy. I agree with Lily, how can people actually be enjoying this?
Although this event is very cruel and inhumane, it is not super rare. This very thing happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over. What happened there was some officials arranged this spectacle and I think the people who didn't show up to the stoning and looked like they enjoyed it ended up punished. That was because not enjoying the inhumane practice was defying the Taliban. I don't know if this was exactly what happened in Somalia, but with its unstable government, I wouldn't be surprised if some corrupt warlord arranged the same thing.
As for gladiators, the death penalty and walking away. I think it is terrible to say that people (at least most sensible people nowadays) enjoy people getting hurt. The intensity in sports comes from a difficult maneuver, not injury. People often grow silent when a player is hurt in a basketball game. As for walking away, I can't change your view of things Kevin, but in my opinion, I don't think letting someone get seriously hurt will justify them cheating on me. In all truth, I think I would feel worse knowing that I could have saved them, but chose not too.
-Henry Zhang
I personally don't think that a person who cheats should receive that harsh of a punishment of getting stoned to death. There needs to be a line drawn for such a harsh punishment, especially getting stoned to death in front of 300 people? This is way too out of line.
"but I feel like you're looking down on the entire human community."
Excellent perception. And the entire human community does not look down on me?
As I previously mentioned, I was once like everyone else, but I acquired a more open mind over time. As I presented views from the other side of the argument, my friends and family were so apalled and disgusted that they weren't able to think the argument thoroughly. They simply dismissed the views and criticized me. That made me realize that they were ignorant.
I was being shunned for having an open mind; essentially punished for a crime I didn't commit. I had two choices: continue to have an open mind or stay like the others to keep my friends. As an intellectual, I chose to have an open mind, and now I'm being punished for it. Occassionally, I regret the decision, but of course, I feel that I'm beyond the point of no return. Having an open mind is both my burden and pride.
So maybe you can understand why I react bitterly to many people. I do not inherently hate people, but I am frustrated at being alienated for my beliefs.
Your definition of Justice is incorrect. Justice is a far broader term that should determine how society is run; I feel that you've created a definition that is only applicable to the situation, and one that has flaws. "To bring as much of a closure as possible to the victim of the crime. Accorded by the magnitude of the pain brought on by the crime." The problem with this definition (regarding the death penalty) is that when you kill a murderer, you decrease the happiness of both the murderer and the murderer's family. You place priority on the victim, but why is the victim (who may be dead, depending on the situation) more important than the family of the murderer? What makes them better? You might say "they've undergone misery" but why should other innocents be subject to that misery?
You say we send criminals to prison for the sake a vengeance? I disagree with that, we send them to prison to remove them from society. It is necessary to decrease their happiness by removing them from society because they are decreasing the happiness of society.
Righteousness by your definition requires proof that one is right, and absolute, total proof is only possible in math (and the sophists placed considerable doubt on that). Gorgias (a sophist) made an interesting statement regarding knowledge: "1. Nothing Exists 2. If anything did exist, no one could know it 3. If anyone could know it, they couldn't express it to anyone else." Basically, we cannot know that we know something, and if we could, we couldn't share our knowledge with others because our communicative abilities are limited. Righteousness, by your definition is impossible. And in any case, your definition is used by those unable to conceive of their wrongness. For example (and I'm reluctant to use religion), those who commit acts in the name of God claim that they are righteous, yet it is highly improbable that God exists. We cannot "know" anything, we can "believe" and everyone can agree on a belief, but we can never "know", so your definition is moot. Mine is more appropriate. Our definitions match in an interesting way, you claim it is the quality of being right, which is what the "righteous claim", I claim that it as an emotion that makes one unable to conceive of one's wrongness, which is a definition that comes from the position of a skeptic.
"So? The crime is still done; that cannot be changed. The murderer might change, but the victim is still left with a void from the crime for as long as justice is not served."
The criminal still has the ability to serve society in some manner; for example Tookie Williams, who was a rampant murderer, and then did his best to repent in prison. Had he not been put to death, he would probably still be working on his anti-gang activism from inside prison. And if they will not do that willingly, put them to work for little to no pay. Use them for government projects that increase the happiness of everyone. I assume by victim you mean the murder victim's family? Or are we back into cheating.
Actually, you can remember a crime and forgive it. I've had friendships where someone has hurt me badly, and I have forgiven people. It takes time, but that does not mean it cannot happen. You are overgeneralizing the entire human population, and I am not sure what your basis for this is.
"You owe those who betray you or resent you nothing"? I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed. This calls for a perfect relationship between any friend or spouse one has ever had. "If they have ever hurt you in any way, screw them!" I would say that you do not owe the person that cheated on you the living quarters you paid for, the love you gave, or even to know you any more, but they do not deserve to die for their betrayal. You are not "obligated" to help them, but if you can, you should protect their right to life, as you should do for any human being. Is it possible that after helping them you can go your separate ways? Get a restraining order perhaps? You are not being "exploited" so much as making the conscious choice to help a fellow human being.
The death penalty is unnecessary. You are decreasing the murderer's happiness beyond what is necessary. The victim's family will receive their "retribution", but should we really promote this? Shouldn't we teach our children not to go for the "eye for an eye" approach? The murderer's family, however, will lose a loved one forever, and they don't get their retribution. The victim's family is still miserable but has the added benefit of experiencing a perverse emotion. The murderer's family is simply miserable, and the murderer can never improve society (by choice or by chain gang). So we end up with two miserable families, and another dead person. Somehow this seems less than ideal.
You quoted my clause determining when it was acceptable to decrease a person's happiness, and then said "That's why murder happens in the first place. The would-be murderer goes to kill somebody who is happy because he/she is unhappy in the first place. If everyone in the world was happy, there would be no murder." The murderer, according to my definition, was in the wrong. And because they have shown that they are a danger to society, they should be locked up in order to promote the happiness of society. This is why his removal is an necessary decrease. Saying "well, he did it first, so it's ok for us" is a perversion of my moral system that I do not appreciate.
As for the point you made regarding gladiator tournaments, it is noted. However, I think the gory death would spoil it for most of us.
Kevin, regarding the words we've disputed, your definitions are both narrow when broadness is required and idealistic to the point of irrelevancy. These definitions are clearly self serving in this debate, as they have no relevancy outside of it, and are in wholehearted support of your side. Perhaps I am guilty of the same with my definition of righteousness, but I, at least, brought it in not as a counter definition. I might also add that my definition is pragmatic in application, because it doesn't matter whether the "righteous" individual is right or not. You exhibit the same quality of righteousness I described, and as I remarked earlier, your definition of the word resembles the definition that one would receive, not from the skeptic, but from the righteous. You place more value on the "victim" than anyone else involved, or victims you may create. You believe that we should not protect the rights of others even if they have wronged us. I am sorry if I sound angry or condescending, but you have shown me in your response that you clearly consider me less than equal, as if I have not put in an equal amount of thought into my response. You have gone so far as to (almost intentionally) pervert the system of morality I have created.
Mr. Silton, if anything I've said here is overzealous, feel free to delete it. In my defense, I do not appreciate being looked down upon by my peers in such an exaggerated manner, and it is natural to respond with a less than happy tone.
Kevin,
Why you feel the need to look down on me (in my response), when before this I have shown you every respect, even defended you in front of others, is beyond me. I have never shown you anything less than the respect I accord to every human being I have ever spoken with. Also, I find it unlikely that only you have an open mind. It is entirely possible that the other people simply reached different conclusions.
I'll have to make a response on Wednesday or something.
Do NOT delete this; there is something productive and important that can come only out of conversations like this.
The only thing I will leave until Wednesday is this for you to think about:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1054910627465846465&postID=4687826538844314668
I think we should let this thread die, and this time I get to have the last word, one that turned out so long I have to split it into 2 comments.
First of all, Kevin, your opinion is really radical. Murder is not an appropriate punishment for adultery. You are free to disagree, but that puts your value system far out of the mainstream.
It is hard to survey something that people might lie about, but I have read that up to 70% of long term relationships include some cheating by one partner or the other. Being cheated on hurts, but turning that hurt into vengeance is unhealthy.
That the discussion got a little testy from that point on is understandable. I'm not going to parse out who was more condescending to whom. Let's just drop it and move on. I think Kevin's comment deserved to be challenged, but some of the back and forth went over the line.
Please reflect on the difference between one individual getting or taking something personally over a matter of opinion in a way that gets disrespectful, and an opinion that most people would read as an apology for misogyny and murder and is therefore indirectly disrespectful to all women. That's a much more serious concern to me.
Men in these sorts of traditional societies are not punished like women are. Women are nearly powerless in society and have no recourse to divorce. Public stonings are a form of terrorism that is used to enforce the social norm that women are the property of their husbands. I don't think you (Kevin) are a religious fascist, so I don't understand why you would make excuses for people who are, or for people who join in or cheer on for their own twisted psychological reasons.
I will express a little empathy for Kevin's apparent mindset, but not his stated position, and I'm going to do so through a story that I'm not really proud of. A year or two ago, some random conversation in the newspaper office went off in a similar direction as this thread. I forget the details... maybe it was about bullying? But I do remember saying out loud that I wouldn't shed a tear if a certain tormentor of mine from 9th grade were to drop dead. It was a sincere opinion at the moment. Mike C. was a very mean kid who went out of his way to call me a fag and otherwise hurt me. He did it on purpose to score cheap cool points he didn't need. He was just a mean person, and it hurt, and not just at the time. The sum total of all that negativity hurt me for many years, even after I came out of the closet and had some perspective. Even now, writing this comment, I'm fighting back the bitterness. He was awful to me, and no one lifted a finger to stop him, in fact, plenty of people joined him. There was an undertone of violence to the whole situation -- "if a fag ever hit on me, I'd kill him" sort of language -- that made being honest a frightening prospect.
When a student challenged me (I think Ari?) on this I mostly defended myself along the lines of "you can't understand how bad it was" but there really was no excuse for holding a grudge that deeply. Probably that kid grew up to be a full time &^%%$#e, but who knows? Even if he did, wishing death upon him is inappropriate. (I'm remembering my words as being indifferent to his death, not hoping for it, but the *feeling* on the inside was one of revenge, and I might be remembering this with rose-colored glasses.)
My point is that people are emotional, and those students who came to me today worried about Kevin probably don't need to worry about him taking vengeance for whatever social treatment at Aragon he has been aggrieved by. I wouldn't really lift a finger to harm Mike C even though I reserve the right to hate him forever, and I'd like to think that if my friends were giving him a beat down for being a hater that I would be willing to intervene to say that 2 wrongs don't make a right.
I'd like to hope that many wrongs are best responded to by turning the other cheek and teaching. Easier said than done. It is easy to be upset and outraged; it is hard to listen and persuade people who are closed minded and have a different value orientation.
So, while I have to say that I'm glad people called Kevin out on his comment, I think he's also being dinged for being open about an emotional process that we all have once in a while. What distinguishes the civilized from the barbaric is them ability to recognize these feelings and bat them down and avoid perpetuating a cycle of violence.
Taking pleasure in someone else's pain is disturbing, even if the other person is truly evil, and they usually aren't.
Holding grudges is easy, but the person holding the grudge is usually unaware of how much the grudge is hurting them and making them a lesser person. That doesn't mean the trigger for the grudge was OK; I don't mean to make an argument of moral equivalence. I mean to say that human beings are better at grudges, vengeance, power and hate than they are at forgiveness.
I'm not a Christian exactly, but forgiveness is vitally important to civilization. I hope you agree, but let's leave this thread by the wayside, hoping that we have all learned something in the process.
The post of Kevin's that I deleted included some apologetic language. I choose to delete it because I did not take kindly to the defiance of my request, even though it was constructive and respectful.
IMO Kevin is a brilliant and respectable person, so I'm really not understanding the social background of this exchange. I didn't care for his comment, but I think you can tell that I respect him, as I respect those that challenged him.
Again, who disrespected whom first or most is not worth untangling here. What I hope for is for everyone to reflect on how to be more respectful in the future. It probably wasn't anyone's intent to hurt someone's feelings, but once hurt, most people become less sensitive to the feelings of others, causing an unfortunate spiral. I see it every year.
To wit: I was an arrogant and insensitive person from age 15 to 32 or so. But I don't think I was that way as a child. I had just internalized a feeling of "no, f&^k _YOU_" to the point of applying it to people who had nothing to do with my issues. I made up for a dearth of self-respect with an excess of hubris regarding my academic strengths. If I could have a dollar for every time I called someone stupid in one form or another, I could retire. Some of them actually were stupid, but I didn't make them any smarter with my attitude.
Obviously, my issues don't translate completely to this context. Still, it seems to me that we could treat each other with more forgiveness and humanity, even adulterers, bullies, and other less than perfect people.
Post a Comment