Lawry de Bivort wrote: > > > > 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.
The quote clearly was about Afghan women, i.e. a subset of Muslim women. Is it wrong for Afghan women too ? If so, was it all war propaganda and/or NGO fundraising or what? > > 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. I see: When I criticize people's statements (by substantiating the criticism with sources and scientific basics like the concept of self-selection), then it is polemic. But when you attack my persona (with empty polemic like "you, the great Chris"), then it's not polemic but criticism. > Then, I repeat, why don't you start actually asking the people upon whom you > pass such easy and ignorant judgement? Why re-invent the wheel when you already asked them? > After you have done so, you then can > use your vast knowledge of 'victimology' to your heart's content. I already began with that, but it fell on deaf ears with you. Chris
