I'm not convinced how efficacious such things are. It seems to me that the basic premise is that men are barbarians who need to be educated on why it's bad to rape or sexually assault women. I think the reality is that most men would never sexually assault anyone, but there is a minority with a "don't give a fuck" attitude. I'm sceptical about whether going to a "consent course" will make them give more of a fuck.
Hundreds of women assaulted in German NYE celebrations
- Thread starter trashpony
- Start date
I'm not convinced how efficacious such things are. It seems to me that the basic premise is that men are barbarians who need to be educated on why it's bad to rape or sexually assault women. I think the reality is that most men would never sexually assault anyone, but there is a minority with a "don't give a fuck" attitude. I'm sceptical about whether going to a "consent course" will make them give more of a fuck.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
but did you enjoy your trawl?
Or in Langley, Virginia...
trabuquera
Modesty Bag
It seems to me that you're projecting a giant straw-man onto a perfectly sensible approach to dealing with a combustible situation of uni students off the leash & on the lash for the first time in their lives. aka retailing divisive bullshit. It seems to ME that the basic premise of consent courses is that it's worth having an open conversation about myths, clichés and misconceptions about sex and rape, FOR THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE STUDENT BODY, of whatever gender. If the only remarks that ever came up in these courses were that 100% of all students of all genders and backgrounds said "consent is 100% necessary and I'd never have sex with anyone without making sure they consented", then they could get called off and it would be early tea for everyone. Sadly, as any number of public surveys can show you, both young men and young women still hold a load of more-than-dodgy views about it being 'sometimes OK or at least understandable' for people to be sexually assaulted, because they're drunk or known to be promiscuous or dressed sexily or are annoying or violent or whatever.
It's not only in the Middle East where better sex ed and a steelier approach to consent and women's rights needs to be taken...
Last edited:
You know, PM, I think you’re being pretty disingenuous here.
You know that if I start quoting from the immutable Quran, or the interpretative Sunna of Allah’s rasul, or the derived injunctions of Islamic shari’a, then I’m likely to find myself banned from here.
If I say that I’ve spent my time working with oppressed groups in the Middle East, then you or others will start shouting that I’m an Islamophobe. Probably even a racist. And that I certainly can’t be trusted in what I say.
Hence my reticence to answer the questions myself. I’d rather you did a bit of leg work and found a more ‘trustworthy’ source than me.
If needs be, I’ll quote you Holy Writ later and take the consequences. But why don’t we start out in Marxism 101?
Marx noted that the term which Islam itself employs to describe relations between Muslims and all non-Muslims is “harb”. “Harb” is the Arabic word for “War”. Islam defines its own community and nation as Dar el Islam (the Abode of Islam). It defines all non-Muslims and their territories as Dar el Harb (the Place of War).
Marx noted that Islam defines the state of hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims as permanent. (This hostility may be suspended by treaty – so as to permit non-violent relations. But such a suspension is only ever temporary and contingent. It does not, and cannot, remove the fundamental state of hostility that exists permanently between Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb, the state of war that exists between Muslims and non-believers.)
Marx cited particularly the Barbary pirates who had for long attacked Christian shipping and raided Christian coastal villages. He said that, although they were basically just pirates, within the framework of Islamic law, the corsair ships were “the holy fleet of Islam”.
Marx did so in order to explain that almost any act of hostility by Muslims against non-Muslims (saving those with whom there has been agreed a treaty to suspend hostilities) is, in Islamic law, legitimate, virtuous, and even holy.
Do you agree with Marx’s analysis? Can we use it as a point of departure to analyse events in Cologne?
Marx noted that Islam defines the state of hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims as permanent. (This hostility may be suspended by treaty – so as to permit non-violent relations. But such a suspension is only ever temporary and contingent. It does not, and cannot, remove the fundamental state of hostility that exists permanently between Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb, the state of war that exists between Muslims and non-believers.)
Marx cited particularly the Barbary pirates who had for long attacked Christian shipping and raided Christian coastal villages. He said that, although they were basically just pirates, within the framework of Islamic law, the corsair ships were “the holy fleet of Islam”.
Marx did so in order to explain that almost any act of hostility by Muslims against non-Muslims (saving those with whom there has been agreed a treaty to suspend hostilities) is, in Islamic law, legitimate, virtuous, and even holy.
Do you agree with Marx’s analysis? Can we use it as a point of departure to analyse events in Cologne?
Cheap as cheap goes.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no, not really.
Strange comment. Marx was effectively just quoting Islamic sources. Do you think he misquoted?
Do you believe Muslim sources themselves when they say these same things?
Have you read anything by the Islamists groups? Or even “mainstream” Islamic texts?
Never mind. I'll move on.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no, i think you don't know much about the barbary pirates. and tbh i don't give a fuck what marx said about this being as i am not a marxist.
what i'd like is to see what you believe to be the answers to the questions about whether it is under islamick law permissible to rape and assault women in cologne.
Weak stuff. Weak as weak goes.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
tell me why i should care what marx said then.
You asked me a question. I answered through a third voice for reasons I explained. I imagined you would want to reply the substantive argument.
But you don’t have to.
Let's agree to differ and go on our different ways.
Cheers.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
It seems to have escaped your attention that this is precisely what the thread is all about: whether within their own frame of reference, the attackers 'did think it was permissible'. Many posters have arrived at this not unreasonable conclusion given the huge numbers directly involved or otherwise complicit.
That the attackers knew they could repeatedly rob and rape in public in Cologne City centre for hours without sanction or punishment is a related but separate matter.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
You're right. It escaped my attention. Please point me to where this is explained.
Bit cheeky - putting that in as a late edit to a previous post where I was unlikely to see it!
I've said already that I'll quote Holy scip if anyone else really needs me to. But excuse me if I don't bother doing so in reply to you.
Cheers.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's not cheeky at all being as i had already asked. i think you're big on bluster but short on the answers to these apparently very important questions.
I'm not retailing anything. There's no charge for my "divisive bullshit" - you can take it or leave it as you please.
trabuquera
Modesty Bag
ok, how about "smearing divisive bullshit all over a thread which is actually about something else, and something much more serious"? does that work any better for you?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Tbh yeah I would like to know where you were working and where your knowledge comes from, jokes aside
PS I'd better just clarify the above...
I have never said that the events in Cologne were halal in Islamic law. I asked the question. My point was to examine the frame of conceptual reference of those involved. Were the events in Cologne halal or haram. And on what grounds might the distinction be made.
Subtlety is usually wasted - you're generally better off being short and to the point.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh i get it you're cartman, you're just asking questions blah blah blah. not seeing much evidence of study here tbh
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
he's only 5'4"
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Surely that depends who you ask given that there's no central authority in Islam? Whoever you ask you're going to get a totally different answer.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Let's leave Marx out of this. Why not explain what YOU think about these sexual assaults?
Similar threads
