The Hijab isn't that incredibly different in that regard.

Besides that they make women wear it because the men can't keep it in their pants.

If we're talking about foreign nations, I have a problem with it because of the lack of a reasonable age of consent for women to be able to make their own decisions.

Again, it's principles opposed to Islamism, as opposed to an opposition to Islamism determining my values.

What needs to be preserved, protected, and culturally honored is the right for a person of the age of majority to be able to make their own decisions without undue consequence.

Disapproval is one thing. Honor killings are another entirely.

Or acid attacks.

Or acid attacks.

Acid attacks are one of those crimes that make me really question myself on whether cruel punishments should be allowed...

Murder, I kind of get. You kill them, they're gone, you no longer have to deal with that...

I'm fine with cruel punishments so long as there is undeniable evidence of guilt and a bad enough crime that deserves said punishment.

Although that's pretty subjective.

But using something specifically not to kill, but to maim and cause permanent suffering for the rest of the person's life...

Yeah, no, that's where my thoughts start going to 'eye for an eye'.

Unfortunately, that won't help anything, because the values at play in the mind of someone who would do that justify it in their own heads

meaning that form of justice would seem like another wrong to right. Therefore, a form of justice with more of a moral high-ground is needed...

I guess the issue is the irreversability of said punishments.

Lest you justify their judgements.

It's irreversible to jail someone for 5 years, only to find them innocent and release them.

I mean, it's more reversible than a dip in an acid vat, or hacking off limbs

you can still release them

but it's still a wrong done to them.

That's why undeniable is important.

'undeniable' is an unnaturally high standard.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard we usually work with at trial level.

There are cases where it's pretty easy to get undeniable evidence.

Like a mass stabbing attack or truck attack.

It still leaves exceptions to unreasonable circumstances for misapplication of the law.

And that standard would be applied to the cruel punishments.

The point remains, though

Acid Attacks are generally used as a punishment for some crime perceived by the attacker, right?

Usually a crime against decency set forth by Sharia law?

Which is not legally defined and vigilante "justice" if you could even call it that.

Or at least not by western standards.

The point is, by using their own forms of punishment, when the punishment is the problem

Don't you ultimately validate their methods?

If a citizen detains someone who's committed a crime, and it's proven

The citizen isn't called in to question

In their own countries it could be considered valid even though I'd disagree with it.

but if the person detained hadn't done anything, or is found innocent

the citizen can actually face 'kidnapping'.