Hacker News Reader

Comment by implements | Hacker News Reader

Are Pakistani human rights different from the universal kind?

My viewpoint is that people should have freedom of religious conscience, and with that a large degree of moral relativism with certain bounds.

Given that, is it appropriate that a country interferes with the expressed sexuality of freely consenting adults? I don’t think so.

View on HN

Different cultures have different views of acceptability. I am sure there are things in western culture that seem absolutely abhorrent to other cultures (one that comes to mind is killing infants after they are born, selling baby parts for money, and abortion in general). Having a view of moral superiority while perpetrating what other cultures consider atrocities, is, at best, the pot calling the kettle black. And at worst, being completely wrong. It is good to have a bit of leniency, civility, and trying to understand others when they disagree, even on subjects in which we are personally invested.

Among the things you mention “killing infants after they are born” is illegal in all western countries I am aware of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

"Feticidal injection of digoxin or potassium chloride may be administered at the beginning of the procedure to allow for softening of the fetal bones or to comply with relevant laws in the physician's jurisdiction and the U.S. federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.[4] Umbilical cord transection can also be used to induce fetal demise prior to removal.[7]"

Intact D&E of a fetus with a heartbeat was outlawed in most cases by the 2003 federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Correct. That's why you have to cause death before removal in order to work around the ban. Weather this counts as infanticide is left as an exercise for the reader.

Killing infants is illegal pretty much anywhere in the civilized world. The culture that you are talking about is really more about some religious doctrines often twiested rather than morality. The same "culture" likes to discriminate against women.

We should not conflate sexual freedom in general with the very specific kind promoted by Tinder. There are many different ways you could design the UX of a dating app and in my opinion the Tinder approach has some very serious downsides. Dating online doesn't necessarily have to be about promoting a lot of shallow and superficial interactions.

Ok, who are you to judge what other people should use for dating? Make your "moral" dating app and compete on merits.

I’m not advocating banning the app but I do think some of the criticisms of it are entirely justified. We’ve seen in the last few years how we all can be affected by technologies that we don’t personally use ourselves so we’re entitled to an opinion.

Also I'm not saying Tinder is immoral. People can hook up all they want as far as I'm concerned. It's more the kind of interaction that the UX encourages that I think could be improved.

As I said...make your own app that encourages a different kind of interactions. Have you considered that people use Tinder because of the kind of interactions it encourages? It's not like there are not other apps with different goals/ux. I believe it's a tirany to use your own morality to restrict other people's behaviour. As long as nobody gets hurt people should be free to spend their time/live as they see fit.

I think your opinion is irrelevant and based in ignorance of Islam and the values that a predominately Islamic society holds for its citizens. These are not easy or often flippant decisions made and/or accepted by people. But part of listening means accepting where you have a right to form opinions, to have them heard, and to feel entitled to them being relevant. This is not listening. This is you asserting a colonialist's supremacy on a culture that does not agree with your ethic. This same line of thinking is what led to the British invasions of Central Asia and Africa, that Indians were barbaric and Brits would bring the education and civil discipline to their land and improve their lives. Well, what good have yours and their Napoleon complexes left?

> This is you asserting a colonialist's supremacy on a culture

Isn't this the history of Islam (colonization and expansion)? Were the people in those places who got conquered not forced to comply with Islamic law?

I live in former Ottoman Empire territory where slave trade of women and young boys was rampant until the Russian Empire put an end to it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Me...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_slavery#Ottoman_slave_...

Objecting to whipping or stoning to death is me asserting a colonialists supremacy?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Pakistan

Huh? By the same token, India and rest of the world was invaded by Muslims in order to free them of pagan practices and bring them into Islam. This includes Pakistan.

Muslims(like most of the religions) are not foreign in asserting a colonialist's supremacy on cultures that do not agree with their ethics. Muslims(like all the religions)think they alone are right and the others are wrong...(i.e pagan, unbelivers etc) and seem to be willing to forcefully impose their fairy tales/doctrine.

>> I think your opinion is irrelevant

Even you seem to be a good representation of this kind attitude

Reply on news.ycombinator.com