Child Bride Kills Husband and his 3 buddies

[Unoriginal]

if she was rich none of this would be a thing, she would probably get therapy or something.

[TirielWoW]

Human rights are relative, so yes. It's their culture, their business. We have no right to interfere, lest we become as bad as the United States.

Some things are objectively wrong, regardless of cultural background.

[Deleted]

if she was rich none of this would be a thing, she would probably get therapy or something.

A woman, rich, in that part of the world? Don't make me laugh.

[Cloudjumper]

self-defense. arranged mirriage can be a good thing ! it can also be a horrible thing. a 35 year old man can anally rape a 14 year old girl for over 5 hours without her being able to do somthing about it. if this girl feared for abuse of herself it is easy to understand why she did this. her parents shuold have done a better job of talking with her to make sure she agreed aswell

[Deleted]

Sick attitude. You shouldn't condone inflicting suffering upon others just because of traditions or culture.

You do that all the time.

It's called jail and capitalism.

[Deleted]

You do that all the time.

It's called jail and capitalism.

So many wats.

[Deleted]

So, you support practices that harms people just because it's their culture? Seriously, some people in this world. Cultural relativism should just go the hell away when it concerns harmful practices.

It is objectively wrong no matter how you look at it. There is no way you can morally support it unless you're a misogynistic piece of shit.

Do they practice female circumcision precisely because it harms the child? NO. They do it for other reasons, reasons of purity, chastity or whatever. As much as I'm against it, it's just narrow-minded to call it 'objectively wrong'. It only takes into account the fact that we've been raised to oppose it. How exactly do you define what it 'objectively wrong' and what isn't? Do you think there is some universal human code which we're born with? Newsflash: there is no universal, objective moral code.

Cutting of the labia and clitoris of a child, then sewing them back up - which, btw, causes a plethora of physical issues, in addition to emotional and sexual ones - is wrong. This isn't subjective. It's wrong. It falls under child abuse.

No it does not fall under child abuse (I don't know what your definition of child abuse is). As I said, they do not do it BECAUSE it hurts the child. Nor are they exploiting the child for their own benefit in any way. Again, what do you have that gives you the authority to declare that it's objectively wrong, when the cultures who practice it might think it's 'objectively wrong' NOT to practice it?

They are female-centric because the topic of discussion is female. That is the only reason why all of my examples were female-centric. And yes, I can objectively say they are wrong. Cultural Relativism is every bit as damaging and bad as Ethnocentrism. If you have nowhere to stand, you lose all ability to be objective.

This is exactly the problem; you are not objective. You are approaching this from a 21st century first world country point of view. Who are you to say that your code of morality is the correct, 'objective' one?

[Itisamuh]

So in a culture where that isn't considered pedophilia, a girl poisons her husband and several other innocents, and you're proud of her? If it was just the husband, I'd almost sympathize, but as it is it's pretty psychotic. I don't even think the age is that big of a deal really, teenagers that young bang all the time. I don't agree with the arranged marriage aspect, of course, but again, that's between those two. Poisoning a bunch of other people isn't justifiable, no matter the situation.

[Vokal]

a 35 year old man can anally rape a 14 year old girl for over 5 hours without her being able to do somthing about it.

I don't think you've ever engaged in anal sex, or regular sex for that matter. What you have specified isn't exactly....possible. Mechanically speaking. If you maintain an erection for more than 4 hours, you will be in the hospital. If you engage in anal sex for even half 1/3 that duration you will be....well lets not even go there.

Suffice it to say, refrain from making comical posts...

[Deleted]

Do they practice female circumcision precisely because it harms the child? NO. They do it for other reasons, reasons of purity, chastity or whatever. As much as I'm against it, it's just narrow-minded to call it 'objectively wrong'. It only takes into account the fact that we've been raised to oppose it. How exactly do you define what it 'objectively wrong' and what isn't? Do you think there is some universal human code which we're born with? Newsflash: there is no universal, objective moral code.

Harming others for superficial reasons, such as culture, is objectively wrong. Also, it's female genital mutiliation. They practice it to control women.

[Deleted]

All my wats.

Do you want to actually point out which bit of my logic is flawed?

[Deleted]

So many wats.

Countless sexual abuses and violence acts happen in jail.

Capitalism makes people act like piranhas in a tank filled with meat.

The only difference between the Western World and Africa is that Africa's abuses are somehow more tragic than the ones happening in our supposed civilised world.

[Vokal]

No it does not fall under child abuse (I don't know what your definition of child abuse is).

Mutilation of the child is child abuse.

[Deleted]

Given the fact that where this incident happened, justice is something one rarely comes by, I'd say the "husband" got what he deserved.
The only tragedy in such situation is the girl's. When not even the state and law protect a child, I guess she has to protect herself.

[Deleted]

Do you want to actually point out which bit of my logic is flawed?

Oh, idk.

Hopefully you can see how hypocritical it is to say that enslavement and rape are wrong while homosexual relations are right.

How is it hypocritical?

[TirielWoW]

Do they practice female circumcision precisely because it harms the child? NO. They do it for other reasons, reasons of purity, chastity or whatever. As much as I'm against it, it's just narrow-minded to call it 'objectively wrong'. It only takes into account the fact that we've been raised to oppose it. How exactly do you define what it 'objectively wrong' and what isn't? Do you think there is some universal human code which we're born with? Newsflash: there is no universal, objective moral code.

It does not matter what the intent is. If you want to go by intent, then I guess most child abuse is okay, too. Most people who repeatedly abuse a child don't intend to do what they're doing. Most people don't intend for a child to be hurt or scarred by what they're doing. Most people aren't thinking that deeply, or are ruled by their emotions. A lot of them are extremely remorseful after the fact - but that does not stop the cycle, nor does it make what they do any less wrong.

No it does not fall under child abuse (I don't know what your definition of child abuse is). As I said, they do not do it BECAUSE it hurts the child. Nor are they exploiting the child for their own benefit in any way. Again, what do you have that gives you the authority to declare that it's objectively wrong, when the cultures who practice it might think it's 'objectively wrong' NOT to practice it?

Intent has 0 to do with whether female circumcision is right or wrong. What matters is the damage - physical, sexual, and emotional - that is inflicted on the victim.

This is exactly the problem; you are not objective. You are approaching this from a 21st century first world country point of view. Who are you to say that your code of morality is the correct, 'objective' one?

You have to have a base morality to operate from. Again, Cultural Relativism is as damaging and harmful as Ethnocentrism. If you have no grounding, you have no basis to look at another culture objectively.

[Deleted]

Mutilation of the child is child abuse.

So is circumcision, yet we didn't outlaw it, for all the supposed civilisation we live it.

[Vokal]

Do they practice female circumcision precisely because it harms the child? NO. They do it for other reasons, reasons of purity, chastity or whatever.

If I kidnap you, bind you and anally rape you for the purposes of gaining sexual pleasure and/or cult ritual rather than for the purpose of hurting you, does that make it alright?

[Deleted]

So is circumcision, yet we didn't outlaw it, for all the supposed civilisation we live it.

Because of some misguided "respect" for culture and/or religion. That people like you perpetrate.

[Vokal]

So is circumcision, yet we didn't outlaw it, for all the supposed civilisation we live it.

We should.