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.)" > As I said, if anyone wants any advice on > how to do this, I would provide it. Why don't you simply provide it, instead of spouting empty polemics and playing childish games of "I know but I don't tell you". Simply say what you know, and try to reduce your polemics-to-facts ratio. > 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. Your replies to my suggestion show _your_ "determination to learn nothing". Worse, by choosing to remain ignorant about the backgrounds (and even attacking those who reveal these backgrounds), you end up being accomplice to the oppressors of Muslim women. Chris (a "white western male" who thinks that human rights should apply to non-white non-western females too)
