Gisèle Pelicot - Husband Jailed...
News2 mins ago
Whipped For Loving..
religion of peace..mmm the face of islam you do not see on bbc, i wonder why..guess trump is more news worthy, considered a racist..but hey whats happening is ok though.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Ignorance and mockery from the usual quarters I see. (And since I started writing this post a believer in moral relativism: all cuktures and practices are qual.) Another normal crazy day on AB then. Aceh province is a part of "moderate" Indonesia which has adopted Sharia and its penal code the hadood. Whippings, stonings and amputations are not extreme,...
21:03 Wed 31st Jul 2019
AOG - // The UK at the time!!!!!
Ah so you admit that our country might have now changed, since we have imported peoples from twelfth century backwards barbaric lawless countries. //
I am glad to see that the 'So' Rule is alive and well this morning.
If I had 'admitted' anything, then the words "our country might have now changed, since we have imported peoples from twelfth century backwards barbaric lawless countries." would have been in my post.
The fact that they are not is because I don't 'admit' anything of the kind, since it is a conclusion about what I think based on what you think, rather than what I have said.
Ah so you admit that our country might have now changed, since we have imported peoples from twelfth century backwards barbaric lawless countries. //
I am glad to see that the 'So' Rule is alive and well this morning.
If I had 'admitted' anything, then the words "our country might have now changed, since we have imported peoples from twelfth century backwards barbaric lawless countries." would have been in my post.
The fact that they are not is because I don't 'admit' anything of the kind, since it is a conclusion about what I think based on what you think, rather than what I have said.
It's one thing to discuss whether folk should be sibject to the law of the land, it's something else to discuss whether those laws are right in a civilised society that respects it's citizens. It is all very well claiming one society has no justification for claiming their view is right while anotheris wrong, there should be limits when it comes to abuse of the powerless. Whilst in this case the existence of this barbaric activity is related to Sharia law and thus an extreme interpretation of today's Islam teaching, discussions about it would apply whatever excuse was made for it. One has to realise that not all cultures are as advanced as each other, some are still in the "Dark Ages" and insist on being there no matter how many good examples exist to demonstrate better practice. Whilst it is taught as being correct to each generation, as time goes by, it may take a long time for such a community to civilise. (Invasion excepted of course, and even then the peace is not always won such that better practices become accepted.)
Old_Geezer - // It's one thing to discuss whether folk should be sibject to the law of the land, it's something else to discuss whether those laws are right in a civilised society that respects it's citizens. It is all very well claiming one society has no justification for claiming their view is right while anotheris wrong, there should be limits when it comes to abuse of the powerless. Whilst in this case the existence of this barbaric activity is related to Sharia law and thus an extreme interpretation of today's Islam teaching, discussions about it would apply whatever excuse was made for it. One has to realise that not all cultures are as advanced as each other, some are still in the "Dark Ages" and insist on being there no matter how many good examples exist to demonstrate better practice. Whilst it is taught as being correct to each generation, as time goes by, it may take a long time for such a community to civilise. (Invasion excepted of course, and even then the peace is not always won such that better practices become accepted.) //
Once again a peerless assessment of the OP - if this were my OP I would award BA right here.
Once again a peerless assessment of the OP - if this were my OP I would award BA right here.
spath - // People should obey the rules of the land they live on. If i went to a foreign country, i would obey their rules. //
That's fine, if you live in a free and fair society like we do, where the rule of law is enacted by judges who follow appropriate guidelines.
But this is a country where the law is whatever the most powerful religious bigots in the area decide that it is, and it is enforced with cruelty and violence and fear.
If you would agree to abide by barbaric inhumane laws enforced by psychopaths and murderers - bearing in mind that the 'law' shifts like the wind depending on what mad thought occupies the psycho on the day - then fine, but I for one think it is wrong and am happy to continue to say so.
That's fine, if you live in a free and fair society like we do, where the rule of law is enacted by judges who follow appropriate guidelines.
But this is a country where the law is whatever the most powerful religious bigots in the area decide that it is, and it is enforced with cruelty and violence and fear.
If you would agree to abide by barbaric inhumane laws enforced by psychopaths and murderers - bearing in mind that the 'law' shifts like the wind depending on what mad thought occupies the psycho on the day - then fine, but I for one think it is wrong and am happy to continue to say so.
If the majority of the country follow and carry the laws, then the majority wins. This is why their laws are how they are. They need to live accordingly to their society's standards. That's how communities work.
Just because their way of life is different to ours and consists of violence, that doesn't mean it's more barbaric or less civilised.
Just because their way of life is different to ours and consists of violence, that doesn't mean it's more barbaric or less civilised.
Ni if you want to have a private conversation - then ring him up !
( as per dear Ni a few weeks ago)
Now boys and girls as you spit at each other in the usual fashion (to which I am accustomed or someone said, I now lie there and suck it up)
can Inject a few bits of levity into all this
the thread should be re-named - - - Whipped for being Andie Hughes !
ter daah !
and to the fella that said - someone will have the last word....
yeah Ni has been trying to do that for a few days past !
ter daaah again
and finally to the fella who said:
//It's one thing to discuss whether folk should be subject to the law of the land, it's something else to discuss whether those laws are right in a civilised society that respects it's citizens (that has a variety of cultures)
does dear old Ogeeze know that St Thomas Aquinas discussed this in
de regimi judaeorum ?
usually to be found under - political thought of the 12 th century
but old Tommo, was discussing to what extent christian law should be applied to the Jews in that society
ploo sa shange - as Tommo might have said in Latin - omne changetur ( vel talis res)
oh, OG you DID know, you were just doing a v-e style - "oh really - I didnt know that, how interesting!" ( when he does know that - the little tinker! v-e teases a lot)
( as per dear Ni a few weeks ago)
Now boys and girls as you spit at each other in the usual fashion (to which I am accustomed or someone said, I now lie there and suck it up)
can Inject a few bits of levity into all this
the thread should be re-named - - - Whipped for being Andie Hughes !
ter daah !
and to the fella that said - someone will have the last word....
yeah Ni has been trying to do that for a few days past !
ter daaah again
and finally to the fella who said:
//It's one thing to discuss whether folk should be subject to the law of the land, it's something else to discuss whether those laws are right in a civilised society that respects it's citizens (that has a variety of cultures)
does dear old Ogeeze know that St Thomas Aquinas discussed this in
de regimi judaeorum ?
usually to be found under - political thought of the 12 th century
but old Tommo, was discussing to what extent christian law should be applied to the Jews in that society
ploo sa shange - as Tommo might have said in Latin - omne changetur ( vel talis res)
oh, OG you DID know, you were just doing a v-e style - "oh really - I didnt know that, how interesting!" ( when he does know that - the little tinker! v-e teases a lot)
Spath - // Andy i'm sure this whipping would class as "civilised" in their society. You can't compare their standards to ours. It's their land, their laws or rules, nothing to do with us and nothing for us to decide that we're apparently better than them. //
I seriously suggest you explore the meaning of the terms 'civilised' and 'barbaric' because I honestly don't think you are using them in their correct contexts.
The simple fact is, violence inflicted on innocent people who are unable to defend themselves is absolutely everything to do with us, and with everyone everywhere. It speaks to basic humanity, that we cannot simply shrug our shoulders and say that it's 'their way', so that makes it alright - it clearly does not.
Let me offer you a hypothentical do illustrate my point -
If the present rule of law in our country ceased tomorrow, and I, as someone big enough and strong enough to inflict my sense of 'justice' on you, decided that you deserved to be beaten severely because you have chosen a Latin AB name, would you accept that punishment as 'the way things are', and reject the intervention and protection from, say, a European country?
I suspect not.
I seriously suggest you explore the meaning of the terms 'civilised' and 'barbaric' because I honestly don't think you are using them in their correct contexts.
The simple fact is, violence inflicted on innocent people who are unable to defend themselves is absolutely everything to do with us, and with everyone everywhere. It speaks to basic humanity, that we cannot simply shrug our shoulders and say that it's 'their way', so that makes it alright - it clearly does not.
Let me offer you a hypothentical do illustrate my point -
If the present rule of law in our country ceased tomorrow, and I, as someone big enough and strong enough to inflict my sense of 'justice' on you, decided that you deserved to be beaten severely because you have chosen a Latin AB name, would you accept that punishment as 'the way things are', and reject the intervention and protection from, say, a European country?
I suspect not.
spath - // What about Singapore where if you break the law you get whipped? Do you think we're more advanced and civilised than they are? Very arrogant attitude. //
Yes indeed, I think that we are more advanced and civilised that any country anywhere that inflicts violence on its wrongdoers as a form of justice, and if that makes me 'arrogant, then I am delighted to be so.
Yes indeed, I think that we are more advanced and civilised that any country anywhere that inflicts violence on its wrongdoers as a form of justice, and if that makes me 'arrogant, then I am delighted to be so.
"Yes indeed, I think that we are more advanced and civilised that any country anywhere that inflicts violence on its wrongdoers as a form of justice, and if that makes me 'arrogant, then I am delighted to be so."
Just because a country actually has decent punishment for it's offenders, doesn't make them any less civilised than us. Maybe they're more civilised in the sense, they can put effect over emotion.
Maybe you should go to singapour, and see if you think they're less civilised than us.. LOL.
Just because a country actually has decent punishment for it's offenders, doesn't make them any less civilised than us. Maybe they're more civilised in the sense, they can put effect over emotion.
Maybe you should go to singapour, and see if you think they're less civilised than us.. LOL.
spath - // If they were innocent by their society's standards, i'm pretty sure they wouldn't be getting whipped. //
That's not the argument though, is it?
We are not debating the rights and wrongs of punishment within a civilised society, we are debating the violence and arbitrary 'justice' in a society which, by those parameters, is absolutely not civilised.
The crime is not what we are arguing about - it's the punishemnt.
That's not the argument though, is it?
We are not debating the rights and wrongs of punishment within a civilised society, we are debating the violence and arbitrary 'justice' in a society which, by those parameters, is absolutely not civilised.
The crime is not what we are arguing about - it's the punishemnt.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Body & Soul14 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Society & Culture20 mins ago
