Perfect Point. Bahu, Taltamir just summed up why you got so much heat for this article.  Perhaps if you had rephrased your objection, more would have agreed with you - or at least not disagreed so vehemently.

Frankly this heat did surprise me because nowhere I have implied that the gender wasd the issue. Ofcourse, I am still a firm believer in the the innocence of Ethel Rosenberg but not because she was a woman but because her brother framed her so that he could escape. Now the real poinmt of all my rather extended intervention was to drive home just one point: Theresa did wrong I do not dispute it and have said so in my post. My point was different: She did not actually kill and the killer in this case Rodney got a lesser sentence.

I do not want another fight on my hands. But really that Iranian woman's case was no different. She too stands accuesed and proven so of havinmg arranged the murder of her husband with the help of her married lover. And when the Iranians say that she has to be excecuted for the crime the whole world stands up and bays--killing a woman How very barbaric of the Iranians and so on. Why does the same arguments put forward so eloquently by so may do not apply to Iran.

No, the objection there (right or wrong) was the method of execution, not the verdict.  Quite frankly, I do have 2 thoughts on the Iranian issue.

#1: For a proven liar (Iran), how can we trust that the death sentence was not political?  Quite frankly, we cannot.  So I think she is innocent.  After all, the only proof they have of her guilt is the word of her male adulterer, and since in that society the word of a male trumps the word of a female (even more so than the standard "all else being equal" cliche), there is no empirical reason to believe she is guilty of anything but being raped.

#2: A society that places no value on a life is not going to worry about ending it.  Iran has already shown that women have no value as sentient human beings (only as brood vessels).  If you want to think that equates to the US judicial system, then that is your prerogative.  But doing so means abandoning any hope for objectivity on your part, and renders any argument you make no more than a Goebbels screed that lacks any facts, and is purely incendiary.

implied nothing, you outright stated it was the issue.

So you are NOT a liberal who opposes the death penalty according to your own words... yet the USA is now in the same league as Iran for imposing the death penalty "EVEN ON WOMEN"

Of course, the above are just the most flat out over examples, in every single sentence you refer to her as "the woman" and "killed" instead of executed. But all I need to do is point out that you flat out say you do not oppose the death penalty, you DO oppose its application to women. Hence women are not "real people", they are pets to be kept by men for child bearing and sex in your opinion... property that should not be executed if it misbehaves.

Thanks for being so insulting and condescending about it (the whole world bays).

That case had NOTHING to do with her gender. It has to do with the fact that the only evidence against her was that she was tortured until she signed a confession. Anyone will sign a confession to anything under torture... thats how the the medieval witch trials happened...

Here is another example: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter3.html

Because I am NOT a sexist or a bigot, I do not care what race or gender you are... A confession signed under torture is meaningless. It means you broke, not that you committed whatever the confession says.

BTW. Most cases of Iranian executions are ridiculously wrong. Women are executed for adultery via stoning, while men are not, and stoning is a brutal execution method, and adultery doesn't warrant execution. Iran also executes political dissidents for speaking out against it. Iran is simply not in any way comparable to the USA.

Excellent points, but I am pretty sure this isn't the execution he is talking about... you are referring to the woman (who was probably raped, but in sharia law rape isn't a crime) and was executed via stoning for "adultery"...

I think he was talking about a different woman who was executed in Iran for supposedly murdering her husband... but the only evidence they had was that they tortured her until she signed a confession...

He is also making the mistake of lumping people together... I don't know who is "the world" that was "baying at how iran dares execute a woman"... but he seems to think that if he shows how other people are as misogynistic as him he will be off the hook for his misogynistic views. News flash, there ARE other misogynistic people out there who think a woman should not be held responsible for crimes that men are because women are not real people. But WE who protest it here (aka, me, Dr Guy, and a few others) aren't those people...

you show me a quote of ME doing it and you will prove that I am a misogynist and a hypocrite, you show me others that do it, and all I have to say is "so what" and "how does it get you off the hook"?

Ah, thank you.  My mistake.  I can see how torture is now equated with evidence.  I guess Bahu, you must now support torture as a viable interrogation method?  Please let Eric Holder know as he is chasing phantoms and I am sure would love to be told there is no need since the world now endorses it as a means of obtaining information in a crime.

He pretty busy chasing Christie down for 2000 bucks and the moment, can't expect him to do something trivial like murder, terrorism, or voter intimidation.

Why do you assume that the Itranian woman was tortured does that not indicate a bias. Further she was found guilty of murder in the same manner in which the woman that we are discussing. My point is that the actual killer escaped with a lighjter sentence.

There is no mysogny here as I am only saying that the woman was not as culpable as the man who actully killed her husband. Now you judge who is biased against women.

In all these extensive interventions, I have been attacked on assumptions that are just not true. I have stated very clearly in my post itself that she is guilty but that she had limited intellectual and mental ability and that mitigating circumstance should hve been considered. Second, the mysogny angle is rather strange. If so I should have welcomed the death peanlty and make it appear that she was more guilty than Rodney who actually killed the two. I have not done so. Third, USA kicked up the big row over the Iranian woman who also stnds accused of having her husband murdered by her married lover. Third, to the best of my knowledge the Iranians have not carried out the execution thereby demonstrating a degree of concern for public/world opinion. As for the claim that the Iranian woman was tortured, even Amnesty International has not made that outrageous claim.

Kindly do not bring Mccain into the peicture. He was a PoW and he was a geniunely brave man and his life story is as inspirational as it is exemplary. Now what does McCain have to do with the case that is being discussed. This example does not"prove" that the Irarian woman was "tortured" and the breaking point hypothesis pro offered.

we now have two seperate issues...

First, the issue of WHICH Iranian woman are you specifically referring to? please NAME HER so we can discuss this more clearly.

Second, you claim that gender is no issue but in this post https://forums.joeuser.com/399009/page/3/#2821463

I show otherwise, you clearly stated that you are NOT against the death penalty itself, you are against applying it to women. Give us one good reason why women should NOT be treated equally by the law, or rescind your original statements and admit they were wrong. There is nothing wrong with that, debates are to teach and to learn, not to "win". I often admit my original opinion on something was proven wrong and change it to fit new evidence, this is a GOOD thing. So please, go ahead and do the same. your options are:

1. Say that there is nothing wrong with executing either gender if they committed a crime deserving an execution.

2. Say that the death penalty is wrong, regardless of gender, and be equally appalled by it when applied to men, and stop painting this is a women's right issue.

3. Come up with a plausible explanation as to why women should be treated as sub human (I don't think its possible to make such an argument plausible, but you can try)

4. Come up with a plausible explanation as how your words were taken out of context and didn't mean what you said. (I seriously doubt that since you were pretty clear and straightforward)

3 and 4 are far out there, try to stick to 1 or 2.

Same manner?  Please, educate us on the evidence and how it was obtained.  Do so, or shut up.  Clearly you are not as familiar with the Iranian case as you would like to believe.

A tiger is a tiger and a jackal is a jackal.