Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Suburbanite · Feb 2, 2004, 06:19 pm

Don't criticize? Haha, why the hell not?

i_am_a_n00bie · Feb 3, 2004, 04:17 am

Far out, and I thought this board was meant to be tolerant. Hehe, no offense, but you CAN be opinionated without being an arsehole.

Anyway, I think the girl should have the protection of the state, if that is what she wants. There was a similar case here in Australia a few years ago, where an Aboriginal girl was promised to a 30 year old man at her birth, and the man payed for her upbrining. When she was 15, she was going to be married to him, but she didn't want to. This case is slightly more complicated, because if she doesn't get married, then the man has been paying for 15 years for nothing.

This may be a bit nieve, but in either case, I think the people involved should be able to make their own choice about which laws they abide by and are protected by. If they want to follow the Romanian/Australian laws, then they should have the protection of the state, if they want to follow the Gypsy/Indigenous laws and customs, then they should have the advantages that are entailed with that.

castille · Feb 5, 2004, 10:11 am

You've just been brainwashed by American propaganda. For once, I agree with one thing the liberals say: most Americans tend to judge other cultures from their own point of view.

I find it ironic that so many leftists are against this wedding.

Try to look at it from a cultural perspective. Some cultures have rules, and whether you like it, they're there to be followed. Its like in the US, its illegal to fight to the death even if BOTH opponents agree on it. Thats a stupid rule, isnt it?

Paavo · Feb 5, 2004, 11:07 am

Ahh..the gypsies.

In Finland, we have a very small minority, the gypsies. They have their own rules and cultural "laws" and they are to obey them very strictly. Nobody here likes them much, because they aren't a part of our educational system (even if they, by the law, as Finnish citizens should), they commit crimes, and are viewed as immoral and sneaky. Now that can be blamed on them, but also on our way of overlooking that their kids don't go to school etc etc. And I know that that minority is alot bigger in Romania, and that the mentality against them follows the same lines as ours (in Finland).
So I'm guessing the governments don't bother minding what the gypsies do to each other that much, but when something is in the risk of becoming public, they have to do something. I think this might be the case here too? It's all a bit in the grey area.

Feb 5, 2004, 10:11 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	You've just been brainwashed by American propaganda. For once, I agree with one thing the liberals say: most Americans tend to judge other cultures from their own point of view. I find it ironic that so many leftists are against this wedding. Try to look at it from a cultural perspective. Some cultures have rules, and whether you like it, they're there to be followed. Its like in the US, its illegal to fight to the death even if BOTH opponents agree on it. Thats a stupid rule, isnt it? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 2, 2004, 06:19 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	Don't criticize? Haha, why the hell not?

Feb 3, 2004, 04:17 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
i_am_a_n00bie Sedimentary Rock Posts: 23	Far out, and I thought this board was meant to be tolerant. Hehe, no offense, but you CAN be opinionated without being an arsehole. Anyway, I think the girl should have the protection of the state, if that is what she wants. There was a similar case here in Australia a few years ago, where an Aboriginal girl was promised to a 30 year old man at her birth, and the man payed for her upbrining. When she was 15, she was going to be married to him, but she didn't want to. This case is slightly more complicated, because if she doesn't get married, then the man has been paying for 15 years for nothing. This may be a bit nieve, but in either case, I think the people involved should be able to make their own choice about which laws they abide by and are protected by. If they want to follow the Romanian/Australian laws, then they should have the protection of the state, if they want to follow the Gypsy/Indigenous laws and customs, then they should have the advantages that are entailed with that.

Feb 5, 2004, 11:07 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	Ahh..the gypsies. In Finland, we have a very small minority, the gypsies. They have their own rules and cultural "laws" and they are to obey them very strictly. Nobody here likes them much, because they aren't a part of our educational system (even if they, by the law, as Finnish citizens should), they commit crimes, and are viewed as immoral and sneaky. Now that can be blamed on them, but also on our way of overlooking that their kids don't go to school etc etc. And I know that that minority is alot bigger in Romania, and that the mentality against them follows the same lines as ours (in Finland). So I'm guessing the governments don't bother minding what the gypsies do to each other that much, but when something is in the risk of becoming public, they have to do something. I think this might be the case here too? It's all a bit in the grey area.