Chris, > Lawry de Bivort wrote: > > You reveak your ignorance, Chris: not permitted to talk to a > burka'ed woman? > > This shows how little you know... > > Are you saying that sources like the following are wrong ? > > http://www.purpleberets.org/international_gender_apartheid.html > > "Afghan women > ... > * Are forbidden to ... talk or shake hands with men outside > their families. > ... > * Are forbidden to laugh or talk loudly. (No stranger should hear a > woman's voice.)"
I haven't looked at this site, but the substance of the quotes I assume you took from it are, as they pertain to Muslim women, wrong. > > As I said, if anyone wants any advice on > > how to do this, I would provide it. > > Why don't you simply provide it, Because it will be individual-, motive-, communication skill-, and location- specific. I have discussed this with the two members of this list who have privately queried me, and will do so with anyone else who is interested. > instead of spouting empty polemics and > playing childish games of "I know but I don't tell you". Please re-read my emails on this before posting such nonsense. > Simply say > what you know, and try to reduce your polemics-to-facts ratio. Polemic, Chris, is a one-sided exagerrated often political rant. You are the only one on this list who actually does use a polemic style. What you are referring to, in my writing, is not polemic but direct criticism -- of you. This may to you be a distinction without a difference. Tough. > > What hubris to assert that you, the great Chris, merely need to > make up your > > mind to know everything, and that the poor fools whose > experience you seek > > to interpret or explain are too ignorant to be even worth-while > asking! It > > is not so much your ignorance I find appalling, Chris, but your > steadfast > > determination to learn nothing. > > Worse than empty polemics, you have to resort to misrepresenting my case, > in order to make your alleged point. Actually, I did NOT suggest that the > 'objects' of social studies shouldn't be asked. What I suggested was to > take backgrounds and victimological knowledge into account when assessing > their replies. Then, I repeat, why don't you start actually asking the people upon whom you pass such easy and ignorant judgement? After you have done so, you then can use your vast knowledge of 'victimology' to your heart's content. As I said some months ago, Chris, I do not wish to spend any of my time trying to educate you. I engage in this otherwise silly conversation with you as it illustrates the theme that I am discussing: cultural blinders and the hubris of certainty. I believe the point has been amply demonstrated, and anticipate further discussion with you only if you manage to say something new AND intersting.
