View Full Version : "Immodest" woman beaten up by the Modesty Guard
Banquo's Ghost
08-09-2008, 18:19
A woman accused of immodesty (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009580.html) has been beaten up by an ultra-religious gang. This follows another recent attack on a woman and a soldier for the "crime" of sitting next to one another on a bus.
Go on, admit it. :devil:
Duke of Gloucester
08-09-2008, 18:22
A woman accused of immodesty (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009580.html) has been beaten up by an ultra-religious gang. This follows another recent attack on a woman and a soldier for the "crime" of sitting next to one another on a bus.
Go on, admit it. :devil:
What the article actually says is that the beating was done by thugs who police suspect were hired by an ultra orthodox religious group.
Adrian II
08-09-2008, 18:25
Go on, admit it. :devil:I honestly didn't.
It's uncanny. I almost skipped your OP from sheer boredom about that sort of stuff. Then I reckoned you were much too smart to post the umpteenth vignette about bad Muslims taken straight from the Daily Mail. So it had to be Israel, the #2 hotbed of religious mania in today's world. Lo and behold..
Hosakawa Tito
08-09-2008, 18:41
No one expects the Jewish Taliban.:7gangster: misogynists are us
Banquo's Ghost
08-09-2008, 18:47
What the article actually says is that the beating was done by thugs who police suspect were hired by an ultra orthodox religious group.
Gah.
Since when did trivialities like the facts detract from frothing generalisations designed to demonise entire religious communities?
~:rolleyes:
InsaneApache
08-09-2008, 18:52
As I got told off for using the phrase 'religious nutters' in a thread some time back. I shall refrain from such musings again. :whip: :laugh4:
Adrian II
08-09-2008, 18:55
As I got told off for using the phrase 'religious nutters' in a thread some time back. I shall refrain from such musings again. :whip: :laugh4:If they aren't religious nutters, then what are they? Religiously challenged? :rolleyes:
Tribesman
08-09-2008, 19:55
Damn you Banquo :furious3:
You could at least have gone to the effort of posting the article but changing a few words .
But anyhow ,for anyone that wants a good laugh please make the effort to read through the "talkback" section at the bottom of the article .
Crazed Rabbit
08-09-2008, 21:12
Religious fanatics should not be tolerated anywhere in the world, and this sort of oppression should be rubbed out.
CR
Why is the "Immodest" in the thread title in quotes, implying that it isn't true?
Just look at how she's dressed in that video. She is definitely immodest to the extreme. In fact, she looks like a prostitute in that video.
I found it hilarious how she says she has to move out of there in a very hostile way that makes it clear she never even considered to try being modest and respectable for a change. :idea2:
InsaneApache
08-09-2008, 21:58
So how to define what a prostitute looks like? Make up? Short skirt? Low cut top? If so, that's what nearly all my girlfriends looked like, including my wife, when I met them. Does it therefore follow that 'religious nutters' are sexually frustrated? I do hope so.
Louis VI the Fat
08-09-2008, 22:31
So how to define what a prostitute looks like? Make up? Short skirt? Low cut top? Mate, it's what I look like by the end of a fine Saturday night. :laugh4:
Religious nutters, the lot of them.
Just look at how she's dressed in that video. She is definitely immodest to the extreme.
Yeah, I can't believe anyone would be so bold as to wear a short-sleeved striped blouse. Why, the should have burned her face with acid, the slut.
Adrian II
08-09-2008, 22:49
Yeah, I can't believe anyone would be so bold as to wear a short-sleeved striped blouse. Why, the should have burned her face with acid, the slut.:laugh3:
Well, Navaros never fails to deliver. Our friend is living proof of the intimate relationship between religious fanaticism and a profound hatred of freedom and humanity. This goes for every religion, in case anyone wonders. It is what unites the nutters world-wide; they would rather switch to a totally different religion then lay off the hatred.
woad&fangs
08-09-2008, 22:59
The muslims refuse to be outdone by the evil Jews (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/526338-saudi-religious-police-ban-pet-cats-and-dogs?ln=en).
edit: linked to a better article
Adrian II
08-09-2008, 23:02
The muslims refuse to be outdone by the evil Jews (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14738358/).Sigh. At least Sikh fanatics mainly kill each other. I wish other religions would copy their example.
:laugh3:
Well, Navaros never fails to deliver. Our friend is living proof of the intimate relationship between religious fanaticism and a profound hatred of freedom and humanity. This goes for every religion, in case anyone wonders. It is what unites the nutters world-wide; they would rather switch to a totally different religion then lay off the hatred.
Those with spiritual awareness are in this world, but not of it. That's really what you are describing in that post. They realize that man, in his natural state, and his behaviours, is nothing but disgusting garbage. Realizing this is not a bad thing though. Not realizing this is the bad thing. If everyone realized this then then society on Earth would be a paradise. It is morally correct to hate all manner of disgusting garbage, and to want it to be replaced with goodness instead. :yes:
Rhyfelwyr
08-09-2008, 23:34
As much as I get the impression this woman was probably looking for trouble (why dress like that in the video?), her wrong-doing pales into insignificance compared to this gang that targeted her.
Also Navaros as much as I agree with you, surely attacking this woman has not achieved any goodness? They must have known at the time it was a petty vigilante act that was going to discredit their beliefs as much as anything else?
They realize that man, in his natural state, and his behaviours, is nothing but disgusting garbage.
I've always felt that religion does the natural world a great disservice. I happen to find the scientific explanations for the way things are to be far more satisfying and profoundly beautiful than the handwavy explanations religion gives.
Nevermind. I never posted here.
As much as I get the impression this woman was probably looking for trouble (why dress like that in the video?), her wrong-doing pales into insignificance compared to this gang that targeted her.
Also Navaros as much as I agree with you, surely attacking this woman has not achieved any goodness? They must have known at the time it was a petty vigilante act that was going to discredit their beliefs as much as anything else?
I agree with you.
I'm not saying she should have been attacked. But moreso I am simply pointing out that her complete lack of taking any responsibility for her own immodestness and no one holding her accountable for that (other than me, apparently LOL :laugh4:) is a one-sided way to look at the issue. She's not so 'saintly' as the report paints her, and as the majority of the posts in this thread do.
Point taken, Viking.
Religious nutters
In my more cynical moments I wonder whether this is a tautology.
Point taken, Viking.
Hmm, I should learn to edit my posts faster. ~;p
In my more cynical moments I wonder whether this is a tautology.
I am reminded of an old joke: Why did Australia get all of the criminals, while America got all of the religious nuts?
'Cause Australia chose first.
CountArach
08-10-2008, 01:38
Damn right :wink:
InsaneApache
08-10-2008, 01:43
Those with spiritual awareness are in this world, but not of it.
...and there my friends lies the crux. Why in Gaias name try to talk any sort of sense, never mind humanity or logic to people who think like this? They are so indoctrinated and brainwashed nothing and I mean nothing is capable of changing their world view. It's a mental illness.
Tribesman
08-10-2008, 02:08
I'm not saying she should have been attacked. But moreso I am simply pointing out that her complete lack of taking any responsibility for her own immodestness and no one holding her accountable for that (other than me,
So there we have it the utter idiocy of fundamental fruitcakes , women should cover their arms and legs at all times , their heads must be covered in public , they must not use the same door on a bus as men and must certainly not sit in the mens section not only because they might cause temptation but they might be having a period and would sully the purity and rightousness of anyone who later sat in the same seat
And the reason for this is simple as one of the posters in that talkback section states , if women do not follow these rules of modesty it makes men masturbate .
Religeous fundamentalists are therefore clearly a bunch of ******* .
DemonArchangel
08-10-2008, 02:52
Those with spiritual awareness are in this world, but not of it. That's really what you are describing in that post. They realize that man, in his natural state, and his behaviours, is nothing but disgusting garbage. Realizing this is not a bad thing though. Not realizing this is the bad thing. If everyone realized this then then society on Earth would be a paradise. It is morally correct to hate all manner of disgusting garbage, and to want it to be replaced with goodness instead. :yes:
I agree with you that man is garbage, flawed as the day is long. However, I must disagree with you on constitutes "disgusting garbage". I find your rigidness, petty intolerance and virulent hatred of all those who disagree with you to be disgusting. If you are spiritually aware, you would not condone acts of violence upon those you deem unenlightened, you would not condone acts of hypocrisy and blind loathing.
Louis VI the Fat
08-10-2008, 03:24
One thing though, religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones with a very specific code of modest conduct, to be strictly enforced. We all force other people to follow our code of dress, to follow our code of gender relations, and to follow our code of modesty. These contemporary Western majorty codes are enforced as specifically, as instantly, and often as violently as those of our derided religious nutters. We are all Navaros.
If I don't cover myself properly in public, I get thrown into jail. Yes, my arms I can bare, but other parts of my body not. What can be laid bare, what is considered modest, differs for men and women.
If I use the same bathroom as women, some woman will scream and some big guys will come and beat me beat up. There is no rational reason for stricly segregated bathrooms, other than the demands of modesty. Not very different from sepreate parts of buses for men and women.
If I insist on wearing anything that deviates from the norm too far, I'll be socially outcast. I can not have a social or professional life if I insist on wearing only my New Guinean Koteka. Or my Darth Vader costume.
The differences between the nutters and us are, firstly that our contemporary Western codes mostly are not grounded in / legitimised by ancient texts, but on newer customs. Our codes are more fluid, prone to change. And secondly, partly because of the previous, these codes are not considered universal.
We do not differ much in the strict social enforcement of these codes. Nor, sometimes, in the amount of violence that we are prepared to use to dissuade persons from deviating from the norm.
The majority norm in the West is, however, usually regarded as transient. Nor as universal. Which perhaps has a mitigating influence on the amount of violence society is prepared to use against those who deviate from the norm. Or perhaps a more general emphasis on individual liberty is the root for a greater tolerance and a less violent dissuasion of deviancy.
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2008, 11:05
The muslims refuse to be outdone by the evil Jews (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/526338-saudi-religious-police-ban-pet-cats-and-dogs?ln=en).
Was there ever any question?
HoreTore
08-10-2008, 11:20
It's a repression of sex, pure and simple. But why on earth anyone can label something as good as sex a sin is beyond me...
I get theft, murder, lying etc... But why on earth would anyone want to stop people having sex? I've never been able to figure that one out...
Tribesman
08-10-2008, 11:26
But why on earth anyone can label something as good as sex a sin is beyond me...
Because life isn't supposed to be good , if you are enjoying yourelf then you must be doing something evil .
Even the most righteous must be saved from this temptation , which is why a ban on naked arms must be enforced because the good people would waste their god given energy pulling themselves off at the sight of uncovered meat .
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2008, 11:30
It's a repression of sex, pure and simple. But why on earth anyone can label something as good as sex a sin is beyond me...
There were many social concerns that led to sexual regulation within religion and culture which largley become irrelevant due to reliable birth control, only to make a come-back with the rise of HIV and other nasty STDs. There was a period right after the Pill came out but before AIDS hit where Free Love was a viable concept, or so I'm told... ~;)
Adrian II
08-10-2008, 11:33
It's a repression of sex, pure and simple. But why on earth anyone can label something as good as sex a sin is beyond me...I think it's fear. Fear of women, fear of uncontrollable emotions. In a healthy environment young people learn to deal with these. In a Christian or Muslim environment they are repressed, vilified, thwarted, and obstructed by taboos in various ways and to various degress, resulting in irrational fear and eventually in hatred for that which is ill-understood and therefore ever threatening. It's what makes the Navaroses of this world pathetic and dangerous at the same time.
Rhyfelwyr
08-10-2008, 12:28
Well I'm not filled with hate, and I don't think women should need to sit on the opposite side of a bus from men. Should women be segregated just because someone claiming to be religious gets over-exited from sitting next to a woman?
If you are a good Christian/Jew/Muslim then you should not even be in such as state of mind and should not blame your weakness in the face of temptation on others. Should respectable women have to live in fear that they might tempt some hormonal zealot, and have their lives organised around avioding them?
The real answer from a religious point of view is not to attempt to remove or hide anything that can lead to sin, but to overcome temptation. That will always be a factor in this world, and you've just got to get over it. As a 'religious nutter', are any of these ideas going to have a drastic affect on society? Or take away peoples freedom?
Adrian II
08-10-2008, 12:46
Well I'm not filled with hate, and I don't think women should need to sit on the opposite side of a bus from men.But you have the same irrational attitude about sex. You stated that children should never, ever be confronted with it, as if sex were some sort of lethal trap, a source of untold horror and misery instead of a source of joy and fulfillment. Maybe you are not that rigid, but from what you wrote it seems that you have the makings of a fanatic.
One thing though, religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones with a very specific code of modest conduct, to be strictly enforced. We all force other people to follow our code of dress, to follow our code of gender relations, and to follow our code of modesty. These contemporary Western majorty codes are enforced as specifically, as instantly, and often as violently as those of our derided religious nutters. We are all Navaros.
If I don't cover myself properly in public, I get thrown into jail. Yes, my arms I can bare, but other parts of my body not. What can be laid bare, what is considered modest, differs for men and women.
If I use the same bathroom as women, some woman will scream and some big guys will come and beat me beat up. There is no rational reason for stricly segregated bathrooms, other than the demands of modesty. Not very different from sepreate parts of buses for men and women.
If I insist on wearing anything that deviates from the norm too far, I'll be socially outcast. I can not have a social or professional life if I insist on wearing only my New Guinean Koteka. Or my Darth Vader costume.
The differences between the nutters and us are, firstly that our contemporary Western codes mostly are not grounded in / legitimised by ancient texts, but on newer customs. Our codes are more fluid, prone to change. And secondly, partly because of the previous, these codes are not considered universal.
We do not differ much in the strict social enforcement of these codes. Nor, sometimes, in the amount of violence that we are prepared to use to dissuade persons from deviating from the norm.
The majority norm in the West is, however, usually regarded as transient. Nor as universal. Which perhaps has a mitigating influence on the amount of violence society is prepared to use against those who deviate from the norm. Or perhaps a more general emphasis on individual liberty is the root for a greater tolerance and a less violent dissuasion of deviancy.
I ever so slightly agree with this post.
Adrian II
08-10-2008, 13:04
We are all Navaros.Yes, and we are also Hitler, Einstein and Rembrandt. Then again, we are not.
That's the short answer. The long one I find too obvious and boring to write. Well ok, let me say that today's hang-ups about nudity are a remnant of religious history, mainly Christian and Muslim history. And the main reason we still have laws against public nudity is because democratic society respects the Navaroses and their sensitivities. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have those laws and public nidity wouldn't be an issue.
Yes, and we are also Hitler, Einstein and Rembrandt. Then again, we are not.
That's the short answer. The long one I find too obvious and boring to write. Well ok, let me say that today's hang-ups about nudity are a remnant of religious history, mainly Christian and Muslim history. And the main reason we still have laws against public nudity is because democratic society respects the Navaroses and their sensitivities. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have those laws and public nidity wouldn't be an issue.
So, basically, you're blaming those who demand respect for the respect they receive, rather than those who give the respect. :clown:
Adrian II
08-10-2008, 13:45
So, basically, you're blaming those who demand respect for the respect they receive, rather than those who give the respect. :clown:No, I am blaming you squarely for all that's wrong in this world. And you know I'm right. :stare:
Our codes are more fluid, prone to change. And secondly, partly because of the previous, these codes are not considered universal.
This, for me is the crux of the issue. A secular moral code may have flaws and injustices, but it is not set in stone and if it is perceived to be too unjust it can be changed.
A religious moral code however is considered to be the absolute Word of God and therefore infallible. It cannot be changed no matter how broken it is.
Of course, a moderate religious person can accept that although the religion is infallible, their interpretation of it may not be, and thus is willing to live and let live (for instance, by not feeling the need to condemn the woman for her choice of clothes). A fanatic, however, cannot conceive that their interpretation could possibly be wrong and is thus willing to try to impose their values on others.
Tribesman
08-10-2008, 14:42
As a 'religious nutter', are any of these ideas going to have a drastic affect on society? Or take away peoples freedom?
Well yes they are , take Jerusalem for example , jerusalem society is being changed(over and abovethe war and terrorist shitethat goes on there) because Jeruslems long established Jewish Christian and Muslim citizens and business are being driven out by fundamentalist nuts who view their interpretation of religeous law as absolute and use repeated and sustained violence against any that don't fit their "ideal" .
It is these idiots who are the same as the wahhibis that so many are willing to moan about , but seem shy of doing so now .
But of course I do like the story on the bottom of the Muslims are crazy too link W&F posted , though of course it won't make navaros happy , Iran is banning stoning people , so for Navaros the Iranian government are now apostates who are turning away from the law as set down by "GodTM"
KukriKhan
08-10-2008, 15:00
Keep the critiques general in nature, Lads, and not personally-directed.
Carry on. :bow:
A fanatic, however, cannot conceive that their interpretation could possibly be wrong and is thus willing to try to impose their values on others.
Willing? No, sir, he is commanded to by God. All of this reminds me of a relevant quote (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FUnder-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent%2Fdp%2F0385509510&ei=0_WeSO6DHoOEiAHkjp3nBQ&usg=AFQjCNHEHu4cye8IpOhvCyq9dx4_7Vw4lg&sig2=ta01gsGsbYWi4A1443ZGyw) ...
Ambiguity vanishes from a fanatic's worldview; a narcissistic sense of self-assurance replaces all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pules, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture.
If there was a god, and if he wanted us to be clothed completely, we would have been born with clothes you couldn't get out off.
Though that would make a mess when you need to go to the toilet
Rhyfelwyr
08-10-2008, 19:22
But you have the same irrational attitude about sex. You stated that children should never, ever be confronted with it, as if sex were some sort of lethal trap, a source of untold horror and misery instead of a source of joy and fulfillment. Maybe you are not that rigid, but from what you wrote it seems that you have the makings of a fanatic.
Attitudes like that are hardly related to religion these days. Just standard strict parents. :shrug:
Who said that sex was wrong? At least, some religions do not allow sex for pleasure, only for reproductional purposes.
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2008, 06:22
That's the short answer. The long one I find too obvious and boring to write. Well ok, let me say that today's hang-ups about nudity are a remnant of religious history, mainly Christian and Muslim history. And the main reason we still have laws against public nudity is because democratic society respects the Navaroses and their sensitivities. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have those laws and public nidity wouldn't be an issue.
Wait, are you serious?
Most people have a hangup with public nudity because they've walked outside their homes and looked around.
Adrian II
08-11-2008, 07:16
Most people have a hangup with public nudity because they've walked outside their homes and looked around.No, they have been thoroughly accustomed to enforced covering from the day they were born. If they hadn't, like for instance the Spartans, they wouldn't be shocked.
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2008, 07:34
No, they have been thoroughly accustomed to enforced covering from the day they were born. If they hadn't, like for instance the Spartans, they wouldn't be shocked.
I'm not sure anyone is shocked by a naked body, just disgusted. I would rather not see most people naked I see in this world, and it has nothing to do with religion.
Papewaio
08-11-2008, 07:41
If there was a god, and if he wanted us to be clothed completely, we would have been born with clothes you couldn't get out off.
It's called skin and we should be ashamed that we cover the clothes that God gave us. After all Adam and Eve were nude in Eden, God didn't have a problem with them walking around naked then did He.
No, they have been thoroughly accustomed to enforced covering from the day they were born. If they hadn't, like for instance the Spartans, they wouldn't be shocked.
I'm not sure given the general fitness of the Western World that I would be so happy to sit on a train with no air conditioning traveling through Sydney on a hot summers day.
I'm not sure anyone is shocked by a naked body, just disgusted. I would rather not see most people naked I see in this world, and it has nothing to do with religion.
It's called culture; which is also an indoctrination.
It's called skin and we should be ashamed that we cover the clothes that God gave us.
Heh, I can see this person preaching to the eskimoes that clothes are the spawn of Satan.
InsaneApache
08-11-2008, 11:56
I'm not sure given the general fitness of the Western World that I would be so happy to sit on a train with no air conditioning traveling through Sydney on a hot summers day.
Not to mention eating out, I mean would you like your penne served by the chef with his dangly bits in the arrabiata sauce? Me neither. :embarassed:
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2008, 12:02
It's called culture; which is also an indoctrination.
Its called aesthetics. I can imagine even a thin layer of cotton-poly blend would make a several hour airplane ride that much more tolerable...
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/65200814111PM_cushion.jpg
Its called aesthetics. I can imagine even a thin layer of cotton-poly blend would make a several hour airplane ride that much more tolerable...
Oh ya'know, there are these tribes in the middle of jungles wearing clothes...that doesn't necessarily cover the genitalia though.
Perhaps you're telling me that what's considererd aesthetic does not vary from culture to culture?
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9435/louisxivoffrancejj1.jpg
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2008, 12:29
I'm saying that people realize, unless properly maintained, the human body goes to mush quick enough, and most people don't have the time or energy to do it. The fact that society prefers clothes has a lot less to do with a sexually repressed culture or evil religion than the knowledge of what lies beneath the fabric...
If Baywatch was an accurate reflection of reality, nudity wouldn't be an issue. (I feel so dated for referencing Baywatch..)
LittleGrizzly
08-11-2008, 12:33
the idea of beauty itself is indoctrinated into us as a culture, things which will affect breeding capability are our only natural guide to mating, the idea of blonde hair or big breasts being beautiful are just culturally breed into us, we do not feel the same disgust if it is a fat animal, or feel disgust if the animal is naked, as it is something (naked animals) that we are used to.
Adrian II
08-11-2008, 12:37
Yeah yeah, there are enough situations where it is inconvenient to be naked, and not just for Eskimoes or Italian chefs. We all know that. But the point about culture stands. Different cultures have put taboos on different areas of the human body and exalted certain areas and shapes as being sexually significant, the remnants of which we observe today in the form of 'taste'. That's all there is to it.
I'm saying that people realize, unless properly maintained, the human body goes to mush quick enough, and most people don't have the time or energy to do it. The fact that society prefers clothes has a lot less to do with a sexually repressed culture or evil religion than the knowledge of what lies beneath the fabric...
Which got to do with culture, anyway. ~:handball:
If Baywatch was an accurate reflection of reality, nudity wouldn't be an issue.
So why aren't the "baywatchers" nude?
yesdachi
08-11-2008, 20:51
I saw an Amish girl’s ankle once. She called it first base. ~:joker:
It's called skin and we should be ashamed that we cover the clothes that God gave us. After all Adam and Eve were nude in Eden, God didn't have a problem with them walking around naked then did He.
And the Qoer'ān says women only should cover their breasts.
For the record, that isn't sarcasm.
If Baywatch was an accurate reflection of reality, nudity wouldn't be an issue. (I feel so dated for referencing Baywatch..)
So why aren't the "baywatchers" nude?
Well I would say that parts of those women aren't real. So maybe that's why...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.