EPTSome people disgust me.
Raped, impregnated, then jailed - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
Some people disgust me. | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
| ||
|
dOofuS
United States342 Posts
On November 24 2011 10:53 tomatriedes wrote: Wow, things in Afghanistan have gotten so much better since it was liberated by the US. Where's the 'Like' button? | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
People are completely kidding themselves if they think getting rid of religion will accomplish anything. You'll just be replacing the "evil" you know for one you think you don't, but it's in fact exactly the same thing, wearing another cloak. It'll be the "religion of equality," or the "religion of green living," or more likely, something that benefits large corporations and screws you. Self interest will always cause strife. When religion is not the tool, it'll be something else. But go on bashing religion, if it makes you feel better. Props to JesusOurSavior for standing up for his beliefs, but don't think his is the only way Christianity is described, in brief or with longer explanations. It's the same poor assumption people are making about Muslims, atheists, and everyone else, for that matter. Not even gay people all have the same beliefs about why. | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
Why would this be a joke when it's a perfectly reasonable line of thinking? Now obviously holding people in a relationship (but not actually married) legally accountable in this way would be absurd and stupid, but when it comes to actual marriage I don't see anything outlandish about this. A marriage is akin to a contract between 3 parties: the couple and the state. The couple mutually agree to X, Y and Z and in return, the state rewards them. If a contract is breached, it perfectly normal to hold the person legally accountable for his or her actions and for the person breaking the contract to suffer monetary or other possible actual consequences. Why should this not apply to marriage? Right now, what we have is a situation where a couple enters a contract, then one party to the contract breaks it and cheats on his/her spouse. Divorce happens and then to top it off the person who got cheated on might now very much be still liable for alimony. Now THAT is absurd and ridiculous. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On November 24 2011 10:15 Roe wrote: that's a good argument to counter his, right? those are all created by religion So all along, we were so fucking stupid not to fight over resources, but religion? I mean, I am fine with people saying people use religion to do evil which is what I am sure you actually mean but still... Political turmoil and poverty was very prevalent in Soviet Russia. There were Gulags and Stalin killed 11 million of his people. Pol Pot killed 1/4 of his population. Such political turmoil was not caused by religion. | ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
 | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
The law is still retarded as fuck though. | ||
|
iiGreetings
Canada563 Posts
| ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On November 24 2011 11:45 SpoR wrote: How can we be sure that the father is truly a rapist? It seems a little farfetched for her to hide the rape and then still concieve the child as well. Maybe she actually cheated with him and got preggo and then tried to use this as an out? The law is still retarded as fuck though. Not really farfetched to hide the rape when this is what happens when it gets found out. Not a lot of ways to not conceive a child either for someone in that situation. | ||
|
WackaAlpaca
Canada208 Posts
On November 24 2011 11:18 Jago wrote: Why would this be a joke when it's a perfectly reasonable line of thinking? Now obviously holding people in a relationship (but not actually married) legally accountable in this way would be absurd and stupid, but when it comes to actual marriage I don't see anything outlandish about this. A marriage is akin to a contract between 3 parties: the couple and the state. The couple mutually agree to X, Y and Z and in return, the state rewards them. If a contract is breached, it perfectly normal to hold the person legally accountable for his or her actions and for the person breaking the contract to suffer monetary or other possible actual consequences. Why should this not apply to marriage? Right now, what we have is a situation where a couple enters a contract, then one party to the contract breaks it and cheats on his/her spouse. Divorce happens and then to top it off the person who got cheated on might now very much be still liable for alimony. Now THAT is absurd and ridiculous. having a law about adultery is pointless, those will get what they deserve when they are judged. worry less about what laws there should or shouldnt be - worry instead about being a better human youself. | ||
|
Zvek
Faroe Islands102 Posts
On November 24 2011 03:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Really? 10 years in jail for getting raped? Another thread that just shows how fucked up the world of retarded people is. edit: @Zvek Do you really support the idea that all cultures have equally valid value systems and should be treated equally? All I am saying is that the incident CAN NOT be judged on the basis of something as outright completely morrally/culturally right or wrong. Especially if you are looking at it from a perspective completely outside of them. It is like asking George Bush Jr. to seppuku for lying about WMD and the Iraq attack. CAN'T and WON'T happen simply because the cultural concept is totally alien to him. You can feel however you want about it, but do not pass judgment as if its the final word and as if you know everything there is to know about the world. Those say that there is/ought to be a general universal value system are only one step away from those who invade another country in the name of democracy. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 24 2011 11:18 Jago wrote: Why would this be a joke when it's a perfectly reasonable line of thinking? Now obviously holding people in a relationship (but not actually married) legally accountable in this way would be absurd and stupid, but when it comes to actual marriage I don't see anything outlandish about this. A marriage is akin to a contract between 3 parties: the couple and the state. The couple mutually agree to X, Y and Z and in return, the state rewards them. If a contract is breached, it perfectly normal to hold the person legally accountable for his or her actions and for the person breaking the contract to suffer monetary or other possible actual consequences. Why should this not apply to marriage? Right now, what we have is a situation where a couple enters a contract, then one party to the contract breaks it and cheats on his/her spouse. Divorce happens and then to top it off the person who got cheated on might now very much be still liable for alimony. Now THAT is absurd and ridiculous. This is my attempt to explain why married people who "commit adultery" should not be prosecuted by the law. INTRO It's hard to make big ole' logical/convincing arguments for things that are so subjective, so let me just share my opinion and you're entitled to disagree, but I think that people who disagree with me are idiots (except my gf, she's allowed to like marriage [within reason]). I don't think cheating on someone is morally reprehensible as far as the LAW goes. It's a break of trust between two people and I'm perfectly allowed to lie, it's legal. That's my problem and the government shouldn't touch it. PART 1: WHY MARRIAGE IS BULLSHIT The whole thing where "a marriage is akin to a contract between 3 parties" is such a ridiculous, ridiculous and disgusting fucking thing. I don't remember who said that, I think it was Doug Stanhope and it went a little like this: "Hey babe we've got a good thing going, MAYBE WE SHOULD GET THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN THIS SHIT. We can't keep this shit to ourselves and live this commitment, we need lawyers involved and stuff." See I think marriage should get the f' out of the government, be handled either by people themselves or (god forbid) by unneeded institutions with absolutely no power in the government. Needless to say, those institutions are as superfluous as fortune tellers. Now I hear it coming: "herp we need tax cuts when we get married". Is that a big part of your commitment to another person for you? Your tax cuts and stuff....? See that's how f'd up the whole institution of marriage is - when most of the implications are monetary. Not that there shouldn't be monetary implications to living with someone, but they shouldn't be directly "tied". So, marriage is kind of a distorted tradition that used to be useless and became a workable mean for people to make a living by breaking up with richer people. How does that relate to the idea of making it illegal to tap another person when you're married? Well, it's none of the government's business. Now the fact that we have to talk about how "abolishing the government-run marriage industry" translates for the legal system is a damn travesty and it's a great testament for the illegitimacy of the whole industry. The fact is that off the top of my head, I don't have a solution for how to handle tax cuts for "married" couples and I don't know how to handle child support and alimony - but why should those things be handled under a social contract supposedly meant to have something to do with love? PART 2: WHAT HAPPENS AFTER SOMEONE CHEATS The cheating should have no bearing on who keeps the kid, but that's not to say the person who committed adultery is good. The justice system should determine who's more able based on what truly affects the kid. In some cases, the adult's cheating doesn't come off as a surprise because he's known to be a dbag. In other cases, the adult's cheating comes off as a surprise and has no real impact on his relationship with the kid. Let me bring up 3 scenarios and I'll try to explain how things work in "my world". 1: Successful businessman makes 6 figures and gets "a little something on the side" - he's a more than capable father. His wife doesn't cheat, but she's not a very good mother for whatever reason (drugs, idiot, Texan, unemployed etc.). He should get judged for what he is. Capable father vs. not so capable mother -> he keeps the kid. Maybe she gets the kid for 2 days a week or whatever. Should he pay alimony? Nope, it's his money. Should he pay child support? Sure, 2 days worth of "support" but it's for the kid, it's not for her. He's not paying because he cheated - he's paying because his child needs monetary support. 2: A couple breaks up because the woman cheated on the man. They don't have a kid, but she's richer than her husband. Does she pay alimony? F' NO! She's just living her god damn life, she doesn't owe money to anyone. 3: A man cheats on his wife. He's generally a dbag and an absent father. She's a good woman who's able to take care of her kid. Alimony? Never. Child support? Of course, it's his kid. Note: Child support shouldn't be a very variable value. Tiger Wood's $10k-per-kid monthly child support is retarded. Kids don't cost $120,000 to support for a year. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: WHY A WORLD WITHOUT GOVERNMENT-RUN MARRIAGE MAKES MORE SENSE IN A HUMAN SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE FUCKING DEAL WITH THEIR GOD DAMN PROBLEMS LIKE GROWN ADULTS Marriage comes with ridiculous bullshit government interventions, but it's not required because the judicial system should not intervene in people's personal lives. Cheating is one of the hazards of "falling in love" and people should deal with it by themselves the same way any relationships end (ex: friends suddenly hating each other, work colleagues angry at each other). The government's involvement should be entirely and purely reserved for situations where young children are involved. The judge is a neutral actor who's job is to determine who's more fit to be a parent: that person gets to raise the kid (completely, or partially with an advantage like 5 days vs 2). Any money transfers are 100% based on the needs of the kid. If both parents are well off, those transfers are unnecessary. If the financial situations are not balanced, it's important to make sure that the kid is comfortable in both homes. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
This is just terrible. | ||
|
Zvek
Faroe Islands102 Posts
On November 24 2011 13:54 killa_robot wrote: Its Afghanistan, its not as though its a civilized country. This is just terrible. In your opinion, what makes a country civilized or not? And in your opinion, please list down the civilized and non civilized country that you know. | ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
/sarcasm | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On November 24 2011 10:53 tomatriedes wrote: Wow, things in Afghanistan have gotten so much better since it was liberated by the US. Very scientific statement. You've analyzed a lot of data points. / sarcasm. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On November 24 2011 14:02 Zvek wrote: In your opinion, what makes a country civilized or not? And in your opinion, please list down the civilized and non civilized country that you know. Civilized: Western Europe Australia Japan etc Uncivilized: Afghanistan Iran other theocracies that have super high death ratios and forced religions. | ||
|
nojok
France15846 Posts
Besides it does not surprised me as women have to hide all their skin because they're weak vicious creatures trying to corrupt men. This woman has succeed so she deserves jail. At least it's the way they think from what I've read in many newspapers from this type of countries. If you want to know more you should read the novel Les hirondelles de Kaboul from Yasmina Kadhra, a famous Algerian writer. It's about the first woman advocate of Afghanistan who's forced to live in her house because Taliban took power and other people who got their life ruined by Taliban. It's I think more accurate than most of Western analysis on the subject. I'd fake to think like that if my life would be in danger at will from stupid moujaidines. Could you repeat what you said in your post in front of brainwahsed big beard guy with a Kalachnikov. Religion is a mean not a goal. | ||
|
DrThorMD
Canada359 Posts
| ||
| ||
