|
Nah, really?
I am well aware of who the lead architect was.
You say the U.N. is a strong, important organization. I beg to differ. Their democratic system has been a giant joke for over a decade. Ever since the end of the Cold War their results have been minimal and conflict between nations still pursue. Some things you cannot change and plus several nations aren't even apart of this organization. The U.N. is very limited and this won't change anytime soon unless we all grow to accept the same belief system and who would want that? Life would be bland and boring without rebellion.
Society cannot live without criminals. They are an integral part of society.
|
On August 24 2007 11:38 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:31 HeadBangaa wrote:On August 24 2007 11:27 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 11:19 Fab Abs wrote:
In their society there is no such thing as human rights. That is the foundation of Western Society, whereas the communal rite of way in Muslim soceity is to have strict laws to strength their ideology. Everything is punishable by law. They have everyone watch so they know what waits them if they decide not to follow the code.
One right they DO have is to leave the country in exile because they beg to differ, wish to have more freedoms, etc. But, to do that you need money and many do not.
I have many Muslim friends who left on their own accord and yes for some it is against their religious/cultural beliefs to drink, etc. Some do, some choose not to.
They are in America now for a reason.
As for your GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (rofl)
No society has to follow this declaration and they have every right not to.
In fact, many societies/tribes that you would call primitive (there are thousands of them) don't follow it and would never follow it because they have no need for it. The thing you are so happily 'rofl'ing at was the UN statute on human rights. Just so you know. Oh, and the UN is considered an important organisation by many. And in the end, even you admit that the validity of the viewpoint depends on the amount of support it's purporting institution has. There is no self-proving definition of human rights. I just don't see how such impositions are to be seen as valid within a culture which views itself as discrete from, not just the UN, but Western Civilization. They don't have to be seen as valid to be correct. Every now and then in Britain right wing tabloids go crazy when an asylum seeker rapes someone. Basically this is some retard who declares he has a right to sex and because British women do not wear veils they are all whores and thus should submit to his desires. When we imprison them they rant on about the great injustice being done to them. That doesn't make it any less just. It just makes them more retarded.
Well, I think we've clearly moved on from the topic and crossed into absolutism versus relativism. I think you know I agree with you and am playing devil's advocate for the relativists, anyways. :p
|
United States43061 Posts
Please don't attempt to criticise my correct English spelling with your inferior and degenerate American versions. That you even attempted to draw attention to my spelling mistake smacks of pedantry but that you did so when my spelling was correct just makes you look the fool. And yes, criticise is spelt correctly.
|
It was a joke.
Fix your goddamn teeth while you're at it, if we're on the subject.
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:43 Fab Abs wrote:
Society cannot live without criminals. They are an integral part of society.
Care to explain that one?
|
You have to accept that Americans find your antiquated spellings to be hilarious. You and Canada crack us up, really.
We export Hollywood, we can laugh at whoever we want.
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:46 HeadBangaa wrote:
It was a joke.
Fix your goddamn teeth while you're at it, if we're on the subject.
Pronounce Pittsburgh properly. It should be Pits-bruh.
|
|
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:48 HeadBangaa wrote:
You have to accept that Americans find your antiquated spellings to be hilarious. You and Canada crack us up, really.
We export Hollywood, we can laugh at whoever we want.
We find your entire society laughable. You're all so wound up about everything. The athiests are passionate athiests constantly watching for attacks on the separation of church and state. The gun lobby constantly fears that King George wants them to disarm. And you're all so damn proud of your constitution and your enshrined freedoms. If you all learnt to relax a little you'd not need any of it.
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:48 HeadBangaa wrote:
PittsBurg.
Edinburgh
Ed-in-bru (u like in up)
|
200 years ago, American English was a shocking idea to everyone. In 200, years I hope the idea of it not being wrong is equally shocking. The conventions of American English are, however, authored in the most recent international context. If I could see into the future and find a language from a context in which language is even more Americanized, I would be eager to apply that one. However given my inability to do so I shall rely on the most recent context.
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:52 HeadBangaa wrote:
200 years ago, American English was a shocking idea to everyone. In 200, years I hope the idea of it not being wrong is equally shocking. The conventions of American English are, however, authored in the most recent international context. If I could see into the future and find a language from a context in which language is even more Americanized, I would be eager to apply that one. However given my inability to do so I shall rely on the most recent context.
Fuck you!
|
On August 24 2007 11:50 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 11:48 HeadBangaa wrote:
You have to accept that Americans find your antiquated spellings to be hilarious. You and Canada crack us up, really.
We export Hollywood, we can laugh at whoever we want. We find your entire society laughable. You're all so wound up about everything. The athiests are passionate athiests constantly watching for attacks on the separation of church and state. The gun lobby constantly fears that King George wants them to disarm. And you're all so damn proud of your constitution and your enshrined freedoms. If you all learnt to relax a little you'd not need any of it.
Who is this King George? Is he democrat or republican?
ok ok i stop now :p
|
United States43061 Posts
To clarify, we'll be back. And we'll teach you colonials a lesson. We'll rally Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and South Africa to the cause. You fuckers won't know what hit you. We'll tax you and we won't represent you and shit.
|
Calfornia Tea Party here I come
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:55 HeadBangaa wrote:
Calfornia Tea Party here I come
Shit was totally rigged anyway. They were only pissed off because a change in customs laws meant they lost an unfair advantage over Indian tea. A bunch of rich merchants suddenly find they're getting competition from the East India Company so dump their worthless crop in the sea and then act like it's patriotic. It's bullshit. You guys actually had a pretty sweet deal as part of our Empire at the time.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
It is worth recalling that flogging and caning were forms of legal punishment across the British Empire and in many other nations not too many years ago (including the USA).
Speaking only of the current example I would rather go for a flogging than lose more than half my assets in a lawful divorce where I was found guilty of adultery, but then that would be just my choice...
Is flogging barbaric? You bet but it is their laws and until they change them and everyone else looks in the mirror I do not see much of a difference sometimes. Just to mention just one example chosing from a zillion - selling chemical weapons is far more barbaric than flogging and a few Western nations were only too happy to supply Iraq with them not too long ago - even knowing they would be used.
On August 24 2007 08:09 Rev0lution wrote: I'm all for nuking Iran now.
This (floggings & canings) has been happening across the world in other Muslim and non Muslim nations - but you will see more and more such news in the near future. If I were prone to believing in the intentional manipulation of public opinion I'd be a little wary with these kind of news in today's political climate. One could make an argument that it is precisely this sort of reaction that such news are intended for. The fact is that there are less and less nations that use this form of corporal punishment, and thus they come more and more to the attention of the rest of the world.
Still, however unjust you may think the Iranian justice system is, it is theirs, and you can find far worse human right abuses, in quality and quantity, in many other countries - a few considered civilized by western standards. Should they all be nuked?
Just to bring some perspective when it comes to human rights, on one of the most important rights:
On a relative scale the number of death penalty cases in Iran is only a little more than the number of death penalties in Texas - and the types of crimes that end up in death penalty is roughly the same, the worse cases of murder in both places with the exception of course of adultery in women - but then again anywhere between 1-5% of death penalties in the USA are people that have been wrongly blamed for a crime. i.e. innocent.
Crazy world we live in, but I like to think that over all, even with frequent setbacks, we are moving forward. Death penalty is less and less used, slavery is badly seen everywhere today and illegal almost everywhere, flogging is less and less used etc.. problem is we learn too slowly and in the meanwhile human injustice goes on..
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 11:59 Physician wrote:
The number of death penalty cases in Iran is only a little more than the number of death penalties in Texas alone - and the types of crimes that end up in death penalty is roughly the same
They were only children.
|
On August 24 2007 11:59 Physician wrote:
Speaking only of the current example I would rather go for a flogging than lose more than half my assets in a lawful divorce where I was found guilty of adultery...
Not if you were a broke motherfucker.
|
Well, in a nutshell:
1) crime and punishment re-affirms the moral boundaries of a society
2) the abhorrence of the crime strengthens in-group solidarity
Blaming the criminal (scape-goating) releases a social tension. In this case the 80 lashes is therapeutic for the on-looking men. They are teaching them what is right from wrong in THEIR society.
We can also say criminals are innovators because we learn from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://photos23.flickr.com/27770685_20ae11e4b7.jpg)
