"'cross-dressing tourists' in Dibai" various #'s

[SarahG]

A better example is to look at young children themselves. Even upon first contact with their peers, when the inevitable conflict happens, both recognize any violation of the Code. Even if a child has never seen another child, if they do something to upset the other, their reaction is an immediate & visible remorse. That's not social training.

I have to respectfully disagree with that idea. Even if a young child has had no contact whatsoever with other children (of any age) they still have gone through a period of socialization via their caregivers (parents etc) up until this point. It might not be socialism on the scale we usually think about, but it's there.

I haven't seen anyone able to make this observation (not saying it can't happen) as a universal concept for extremely young infants.

The older these infants are, the more socialization has had a part (even if it is a small part). Although I would be able to accept the idea that humanity is somewhat predisposed to buy into socialism along the lines of "don't hurt your brother," even at a young age but that doesn't mean a biological prewired determination. I can also foresee a function of the opposite (violent sibling rivalry).

To work from the other side of things (maladaptive actions, violence etc), I would not be surprised if the behaviors usually considered bad, evil, whatever are likewise the result of conditioning/socialization to a large degree, as a useful reaction. In a fucked up world where everyone is inclined to kill or mame you, it probably is an asset to be equally aggressive than to be alteri huic & passive. I am sure there is evidence to support this notion, profiles towards those who commit maladaptive acts often have a surprising level of accuracy in their commentary about the person's childhood & life experiences.

But neither of these wholly address the types of problems in society that got us on this tangent. There is, I believe, a subfiend of sociology & psychology to address groups & mobs. It can be entirely moot if the individual is even normally, as a biological instinct alteri huic if whenever banded in groups, the behavior is dramatically different. If anything mob violence and mass hysteria generated actions show at great length the way in which, in "societies" humanity is far from "naturally good" especially if these "group" actions are so universal despite differences in cultural & societal conditioning.

Related but not an example of mob violence or mass hysteria: There is that famous case, I think it was from Chicago or NYC where decades ago this girl was brutally attacked in front of a row of large apartment buildings in summer when everyone had their windows open. Everyone heard her screaming, but not a single person intervened or called law enforcement for her aid. I am sure their consciences bothered them the next day when they learned that she was never helped, but despite all the good intentioned people that existed in ear shot of the attack, everyone- even as individuals, assumed that someone else was already intervening or calling the police. "After all, it is a busy city, someone, MUST be doing something about it by now."

[BrendaQG]

Yes exactly. The above is...an example of why religions exist why they are important and why they have the rules they do.

Where people go wrong is when groups of people seek to enforce those rules themselves instead of through a legal process or leaving it up to god. (Because they hate people who do Y and they know that in most legal processes it's hard to prove that they did Y. i.e. here in IL it adultery has been a felony for long while).

[Tomfurbs]

Now feel free to conform to the Islamophobia of the GLBT community.

Criticising certain practices carried out in some Islamic countries is not Islamophobia.

Punishing homosexual activity is, however, very homophobic.

[SarahG]

Where people go wrong is when groups of people seek to enforce those rules themselves instead of through a legal process or leaving it up to god.

However just because the people want something, doesn't mean they should get it. Aren't most oppressive measures the result of the people demanding them? Certainly was the case with the inquisition.

In the US the legislation that is most inclined to pass without resistance are crime bills created by a beseeching general public, especially bills related to sex crimes. We were willing to abandon due process & double jeopardy for sex offenders long before terrorism was a political issue here.

Most people seem to readily agree that prohibition was a mistake, and that you can't regulate morality (just attacks on natural rights), but that is exactly what happens when regulations are heavily influenced by societal & religious norms or rules. I bring up rights because an individual walking over to someone's house and taking off with their possessions is an attack on their property rights, voyeurism an attack on their privacy, violence an attack on their person/health.... and so laws regulating such points are different from nation wide "you can't buy alcohol on sunday" law. Or "contraceptive is contraband because the Pope says its bad" or any number of similar things.

If you open the door to religious based regulation in a secular (as in the legal system) republic, you also open the door for that regulation to change with a change in population. We have the luxury of mostly being secular, materialistic in our day to day lives, even if there are large christian factions in certain states. If there is no separation of church & state, if religious rules & norms are thrown into the legal system than all it would take is a change in population to dissolve the nation's freedom of religion.

You don't have religious freedom when there is nation-wide enslavement to a set of religious doctrines on conduct. Just as it is no longer free speech to be mandated to say things for propaganda purposes (even if you happen to believe in those propaganda views & statements), it is no longer freedom of religion if you are forced to conduct your businesses based on religious rules, forced to give your kids a name common in the majority's religious texts, forced to send them to a religious school, and then abide by the majority's religion's rules and definitions of coital relationships.

The judicial system is no better from the mob when it is a tool of the mob. Our system is blatantly biased, both in present and historic contexts whenever we're dealing with a socially volatile issue.

Do you think middle aged white males are regarded in the system (on sex crime cases) no different from say, attractive young white female teachers? Do they have the same chances at acquittal? Are they punished similarly?

What about the trans accused (or in civil court, the trans party on either side)? What are their odds at being taken seriously, let alone be given a fair chance? If you had the choice of going to court known as a cis-girl or a tranny (without anyone being the wiser) which would you chose?

What worries me about the human rights watch article was not that the two who were put to death were tried in the legal system, but the references to due process indifference. I don't know all the facts in the case, and am not intending to blame the victim but what chance was there, that homosexuality became part of the case because the victim feared being labeled as a homosexual willing participant? Such things has happened before. In our own country's history how many girls avoided interracial relationship law by accusing a black guy with forced rape or assault? In this Iran case the act is wrong either way (the victim is underage for sex), but "the three of us had sex" is different from "if i say the three of us had sex I will be stigmatized as a homosexual so to save myself I will say that I was brutalized by two gay guys/adults." I don't know the details of the case in its entirely, that's why I said concern and not "disagreement"

Assuming that accusation was accurate, you yourself stated that it is the type of crime where you'd think about stoning the guilty parties to death... but it being an act that would encourage mob violence, or lynching poses the question of "how was the case itself handled?"

Did the police run around beating up anyone and everyone related to the case until they got what they needed to find the guilty parties & charge them? Did those in the judicial system give the two a fair trial or merely go "this act is disgusting" and immediately see the two as guilty before even hearing a word of evidence (for either the state or the defense)? There are numerous ways this could have gone wrong, and the article does mention that due process was a problem (but in the event that this is a biased source, I can't say the validity of those remarks).