Talk:Iran/Archive1

Homosexuality
Homosexuality has no public support in Iran. It should be mentioned. No one except a few urban pro-western people support homosexuality. --Jihadist Forever 16:05, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Presumably it's supported by Iranian homosexuals?--Bobbing up 16:14, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Who said homosexuals are brutally treated in Iran as the article is claiming? --Jihadist Forever 16:23, 23 November 2008 (EST)

that's just one. I could find you dozens of others. PFoster 16:26, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Is not HRW a Western source? --Jihadist Forever 16:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * It's active worldwide, employs people from many countries in the non-Western world. PFoster 16:30, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Hey Jihadist Forever. What does happen to homosexuals in Iran?--Bobbing up 16:35, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * If it is an organization based in a Western country, it should be attributed. --Jihadist Forever 16:44, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Victim complex much?69.15.22.42 16:46, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Above was me!WilhelmJunker 16:46, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Nice of you to identify yourself. Now could you identify who you were referring to?  It's not particularly clear. --Kels 16:49, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * It should be clear that I'm referring to Jihadist Forever, who rejects "Western" sources out of hand, and is of an irrationaly conspiratorial mindset.WilhelmJunker 16:53, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Fair enough. It's always hard to tell though, you could have been referring to homosexuals having a victim mentality just as easily, thought it was best to clear it up.  --Kels 17:06, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Hey Jihadist Forever. What does Iran do to Homosexuals? Or is the president right and there aren't any?--Bobbing up 16:47, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Iran Contra
Congress didn't make it illegal to sell weapons to the Contras until the "Boland Amendments" of 82-84. Researcher 19:54, 23 November 2008 (EST)

The West is evil
Homosexuality as identity and as practice are two different matters. Iran, with a Muslim majority, only punishes the willing male parties to an act of anal penetration, if proven in court by testimony. Within heterosexual matrimony, too, Islam takes a dim view of anal intercourse, in some schools entirely forbidding the act. Islam is entirely silent about homosexuality as a state of being. This is consistent with orthodox Islamic jurisprudence, the collected body of decrees, which consists mainly of pragmatic what-ifs: "what if X does Y? Z or T should do W." Compliance from members of a Muslim society is expected in what they do rather than what they are. The centrality of what-one-is/identity is a rather recent, in historical scale, phenomenon with European origins.

Iranian culture itself, as that of many other places, is harsh towards effeminate men and masculine women but there are no codified boundaries or punishments and the state has no participation in these matters. This predates Islam and goes all the way back to Iran's Zarathustran origins which, too, condemned anal intercourse of any kind and had taboos against breaking of gender roles.

In turn the general dour mood the Islamic Rebpulic wants to instill, as protection and proof of its citizens' piety, is not related to negative Iranian attitudes towards either queer lifestyles or the Islamic decree against anal penetration. What is targeted is mostly "normal" heterosexual party-going youth. A typical "party raid" which is statistically rare, since you can be sure there are thousands of parties going on every night around the country, is universally prompted by neighbor complaints, police response, and subsequent evidence of code-breaking. Typically, such evidence is that of alcohol and drug use, as well as what the majority of 35+ Iranian parents would consider sexual misconduct.

I am not sure how these amount to human rights violations given a majority of Iranians agree on and even willingly pretend to piety. I also believe HRW's inconsistent track record in reporting Western abuses which are far larger in the number of people they affect undermines its credibility.

It may be apt to ask what takes priority if the Western notions of human rights, regularly trampled upon by Western countries themselves, come at odds with other societies' cultures. Is everyone with beliefs and behavior defying Western demands a criminal because the West says so?

I'm not sure what the purpose of RationalWiki is. Presumably it's serious material but this article's information are primarily in jest and irony, or half-truths, or out-of-context factoids. I hope the regular editors can do better.
 * "I also believe HRW's inconsistent track record in reporting Western abuses which are far larger in the number of people they affect undermines its credibility." Funny, because HRW has been criticized for not being pro-Israel enough. And how is this not tantamount to gross human rights violations? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * HRW says that homosexual activity in Iran can be, and is, punished by flogging and death. Is this correct? --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I already noted willing male parties to anal intercourse can be put to death in Iran. Although, this is rare for the simple reason that it occurs in private. Courts can only proceed to condemn by testimony. As a result, absolutely all cases where this gets applied are either rape in which the perpetrator is put to death; or the much rarer cases where a family conspire to provide such testimony against a homosexual member (typically, a son). All in all this amounts to a very small number of executions Iran performs. The absolute majority of executions performed are for convicted murderers and rapists. 176.31.243.127 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I must add changing the title of this section to "The West is evil" from what I wrote is unfair. I won't touch it however since the person can only come back and do it again. I'm not sure why the person who did this thinks smearing me is the right way to debate. I personally don't think the moral terms good/evil are applicable to societies. I made no mention of Israel nor have any interest in that topic. So I don't know why it was brought up regarding HRW's inconsistent track record which I alluded to. 176.31.243.127 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be confused about your intentions in your posts. Is it your intention to defend a society which not only carries out capital punishment but is prepared to carry out capital punishments for homosexual acts?  You seem so calm about it I'm not sure if you simply accept such sentences and attitudes as acceptable or if you feel that capital punishment under these circumstances is outrageous.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This newsletter from the UN might make intersting reading when it comes to human rights and sexuality. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting link, but I'd really like to get a response form our IP editor. Is he seriously saying, "Yes, we kill a few homosexuals - but it's only a few so that's OK?" --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The biggest point I gleaned from the article is that, when the law is homophobic, it encourages society to be homophobic. Even if executing "only a few" is OK (I don't know how I just typed that) it's the side effects that mean that you're back to the love that dare not speak it's name.
 * For me, one of the most basic rights of all, is the ability to walk down the street with my partner, letting the whole world know we're an item. This, and all that goes with it, is denied. But it's OK, because it's "only a few", I don't think so.
 * Come on BoN, Bob and I are interested. What is your response? Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I already wrote I don't view societies in moral terms. Good/evil, right/wrong, okay/not-okay; these are moral terms. Also, as I noted, the situation is far more complex than "executing a few homosexuals," which is really an image of the situation simplified beyond usefulness for debate. What I personally believe in is sovereignty of peoples over their own affairs and sociocultural evolution. If particular social constructs are harmful or indifferent to overall fitness of a particular society they will gradually become extinct. That in the long run is the ultimate proof of some constructs and ultimate refutation of some other constructs. Whether or not I defend the Iranian culture it exists as it is and will evolve as it will. As far as I understand RationalWiki has two concerns: accurate presentation of reality and rational criticism of it. Neither of these two call for insertion of one's own cultural percepts however enamored of them one may be and however one may think they are good/right/okay, but on this particular article and its talk page this has happened. That's why I wrote the comment in the first place. 176.31.243.127 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But, I'm still not clear on your position. Are you in favour of the idea of executing homosexuals who perform homosexual acts?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

On the general subject of rights and 'my partner' I bring to your attention the fact that nuclear families, de facto couples, family units, and the modes of social organization you are familiar with constitute only a fraction of human reality in terms of their time, space, and following. To wit, even your conception of 'walking down the street' is so. Human is not only Western human. Other humans than Western humans are humans, too. And like all humans are social animals whose lives are largely shaped by culture. Their conceptions of rights are to different degrees at variation with that of Western humans due to their different cultures. As such forming a universal understanding of human rights is a very tough task which usually leads to a very shaky consensus or very limited articles universally agreed upon. Of course, there is always the choice of coercion. Any society that feels entitled to universalizing its culturally-informed perception of human rights is welcome to use coercion, if it also feels powerful enough to do so. 176.31.243.127 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Another note I must make is that evolution, sociocultural evolution in this case, doesn't have a direction. There is no 'back' and 'forward' to the course of evolution. I imagine rhetoric containing statements on the patterns 'back to X' and 'forward to Y' regarding evolving systems come from inserting culturally-inculcated teleological demands into the framework of evolutionary thought where such demands are entirely incongruent. 176.31.243.127 (talk)


 * Simple questions deserve simple answers. Do you believe that executing people for engaging in consensual anal sex is morally right, morally wrong, or up to every society to decide for itself? Hipo crite 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not and should not be about me. But if you take a particular interest in my person: I'm an Immoralist, in the Nietzschean sense. Questions of morality find no answer with me. Furthermore, you may evaluate specific actions in specific ways within what you present as your or your social milieu's ethics. Such evaluations in themselves, and without you engaging in coercion, do not affect any society you target, either the one you live in or others. So the question of whether it is 'up to every society to decide for itself' has a trivial answer: free of coercion every society does 'decide for itself,' regardless of how any observer within or without that society ethically evaluates actions. Some questions are deceptively simple. That it's easy to form questions is no guarantee that answers exist or are simple. Humans have been trying to answer simple questions along the lines of "how does a ball travel in air when kicked" for millennia. The answers they have come up with so far are not simple. 176.31.243.127 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your exact relation with Iran? Be specific. Hipo crite 18:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm an AgitProp agent of the Islamic Republic. Have a fine day. 176.31.243.127 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think this has the same sort of feel as debating with PJR? Obviously they are not the same person but the style of responding seems similar.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think this has the same sort of feel as debating with PJR? I am sure the resemblance is superficial. PJR would have picked every bit apart and used the TQ template to quote it all. You must be an Iranian sympathizer ;-) Hamster (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PJR would have analysed every line in order to respond to every comma and thus avoid responding to whatever had really been asked. On the other hand this user avoided responding to the question being asked by considering the colour of the sky or whatever, but I felt a similar desire to avoid a direct response.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nazi influence over naming Iran
Personally it strikes me as a kind of meaningless sorta-Godwin to put this tidbit so high in the article, especially when  'Iran' has been it's actual name for milennia.&mdash; Unsigned, by: User: / talk / contribs
 * That depends who we're talking about, to the Greeks its "actual name" has been 'Persis' (or something similar) for millennia. The point is that names are relative and to the western world its actual name WAS 'Persia' until 1935. Now its actual name to the world is 'Iran', both names are/were valid in context. SolPyre (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Do things have "actual" names? 23:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Christopher Paolini they do. Strangely enough they sound vaguely Scandinavian Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Hmm. Do things have "actual" names?" No they don't, humans make them up, that's what I was trying to say. SolPyre (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting fact
, there are over 1 million Sunnis in Teheran and no Sunni mosques, yet there are Christian churches. This might be just a tidbit, but this article could use a whole section on society in Iran. 60% of all college enrolled are female now, while girls are being shot in the head for wanting to go to school in neighboring Afghanistan. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 18:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Democratic in function
How can you say Iran is democratic in function(whetever that means), then go on to say that the head of state is chosen by the supreme leader and that any laws voted on by the parliament are subject to veto by a theocratic council, half of which is chosen by the supreme leader. Is russia also democratic in function? SuperDude,What does mine say? Sweet! 00:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, so long as you say you're a democracy, people automatically call you a democracy, even if you're a theocracy in function, unless you're "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" or "The People's Republic of China" and then people notice how bullshit it is. Works for plenty of other Middle Eastern countries, works for Israel, and works for America. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How are Israel and America not democracies? They are capitalist, but so is any democracy in existence. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm suspecting that the question of Iran's democratic, or shall we say elective, elements pertains to their majlis (parliament) and the fact that they hold relatively fair (but not free) elections (as the theocracy functions as a gatekeeper preventing any "un-Islamic" politicians from participating). It's nevertheless an interesting system because unlike more out-and-out dictatorships it includes at least some form of popular involvement and brings the factionalism in Iranian leadership far more into the open than, for instance, in the Gulf monarchies, not to mention that the government drawn from the parliament seems to actually control some elements of policy-formulation and -implementation in Iran, again unlike the Gulf monarchies whose cabinets seem to be beholden to the kings and whose parliaments more resemble the medieval advisory bodies from which modern European parliaments developed. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The GDR had "elections" for their parliament. And technically you could get onto the list if you were in the good graces of the dear leaders. But in reality everything was decided by Honnecker (or earlier Ulbricht) who claimed to operate on behalf of Moscow. Just like the dear leader in Iran who claims to act on behalf of the Madi who is "coming back soon". The only truly major difference is that the GDR had to fake everything to 99% in favor whereas the Mullahs are happy with faked 60% or so in favor (remember the 2009 "election"). That is imho a difference of degree, not of principle. And on the important points - Kill all Juice, exterminate Israel, spread the glorious revolution, build the bomb - there is hardly any difference between the "official" factions... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Some BoN has a gripe
Interesting... Based on what historical facts are you making such baseless, groundless and totally false comments? If you are genuinely interested in the Iranian history and culture, pick up a few history books from your local library and learn. Admittedly, learning this way is indeed rather time consuming, which, is not particularly attractive to the average mind. However, If you want to be able to express independent thoughts, thoughts that carry with it a significant value, your sources cannot be your "cool" friends who regulary get drunk and have taking drugs as their main hobbie. Neither can you get quality information from certain mainstream broadcasting chanells that pursue their own unique political properganda. Not to mention their sorce of fund. Sadly, it seems to me that your intention is very much to destorte history and facts. I will leave you with a poem from Saadi to think about: "If you have no sympathy for human pain, The name of human you cannot retain". God bless the people of the universe as we are all equal.
 * Dear BoN who will never see this: when writing, there is a concept called a "thesis", typically a central point you want to make. In this case, a straightforward reading would suggest you're thesis is "you making such baseless, groundless and totally false comments".   It would be extremely helpful to both your goal of correcting errors, and our own goal of being truthful, if you did the most important supporting action, and state what those false comments are.   Thank you for your consideration(if you ever read this), ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We really need a section on Iran's nuclear ambitions
I'm somewhat clueful on nuclear matters so I started researching for such a section. However, this article made my brain hurt so I stopped.

We could either a) have a very superficial quickie paragraph or two, or 2) wait until somebody has the patience to write something good. Ithaca8 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or (iii) Forget the whole idea. Ithaca8 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)