A Very Special Update: Raped Women Who Dressed Immodestly Deserve It, Woman Stoned
- Thread starter PittsburghAfterDark
- Start date
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='javeryh']OMG. What is with all of the ridiculous contract examples? Just because you make a contract with someone does not make it enforcable. You don't seem to have any idea how contract law operates and you are making insane comparisons to a woman getting stoned to death because she cheated on her husband. Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills![/QUOTE]
Marriage IS a contract. It SHOULD be a private contract between 2 people, but for whatever reason, society seems to think that it needs to keep butting its head in every 15 seconds.
I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.
What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.
What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.
Marriage IS a contract. It SHOULD be a private contract between 2 people, but for whatever reason, society seems to think that it needs to keep butting its head in every 15 seconds.
I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.
What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.
What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.
KingSpike
CAGiversary!
[quote name='javeryh']Holy crap. ALL HUMANS ARE NOT INHERENTLY FLAWED AND SELFISH. Jeez, I know they teach that shit in church or catholic school or wherever you find gullible people looking for an explanation of life and the universe but the fact that people buy into that concept just boggles my mind. Have you ever held a newborn in your arms? Original sin my ass.[/quote]
I don't recall saying anything about original sin. But humans are flawed. I'm not even speaking in religious terms. And yes, we are selfish. A child's perception focuses entirely on his/her self. Over time one hopes that they can gain some empathy and see that the world does not evolve around them, but that isn't always the case.
So having faith in something is a flaw?
You made another comment about free thought. If I think deeply about what I believe in and see that I agree with Catholicism, I have used my free thought to choose Catholicism. To you would this still mean I am not capable of thinking freely? That would be a pretty arrogant judgment to make.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that your problem with religion is simply because of the faith issue. Rather, it seems like it's when people who have faith in something (in this case, God) use it to harm/hate others. Or they are hypocritical in that they claim people should love each other and then send out so much hate. One humorous example I saw on the Daily Show: they had that rally in a "mega-church" about how democrats are persecuting "those who have faith." One guy said that all humans should be tolerant and kept on stressing how important tolerance was...and then IMMEDIATELY bashed on homosexuals and how male-male marriages should not be allowed. So...spreading tolerance...but only to people like us? I'm Christian and even I think that guy was stupid.
But that isn't religion (as a general term) that is causing that. Or faith. It is someone using faith/religion as a means to further their hateful views. It is most unfortunate that people do that (understatement of the century) but religion isn't the only vessel that people use to spread their negative views.
Some people (like myself) have gained a lot from religion/faith. If you (anyone) haven't, then fine. I'm not going to say that you're going to hell, or you're wrong, or stupid, or inferior, because that's not my place and I don't know if any of those are true (if I believe that God is the only one that knows something like that then me saying "you're going to hell" is pretty dumb). I wish that more people that were Christians (or anyone, really) were more loving and tolerant. But, in my opinion, if I want to set myself apart from people who are hateful and closed minded, then saying "All Christians are sheep" or "all atheists are self righteous idiots" does nothing but make me pretty much the same thing, just using different words.
I don't recall saying anything about original sin. But humans are flawed. I'm not even speaking in religious terms. And yes, we are selfish. A child's perception focuses entirely on his/her self. Over time one hopes that they can gain some empathy and see that the world does not evolve around them, but that isn't always the case.
So having faith in something is a flaw?
You made another comment about free thought. If I think deeply about what I believe in and see that I agree with Catholicism, I have used my free thought to choose Catholicism. To you would this still mean I am not capable of thinking freely? That would be a pretty arrogant judgment to make.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that your problem with religion is simply because of the faith issue. Rather, it seems like it's when people who have faith in something (in this case, God) use it to harm/hate others. Or they are hypocritical in that they claim people should love each other and then send out so much hate. One humorous example I saw on the Daily Show: they had that rally in a "mega-church" about how democrats are persecuting "those who have faith." One guy said that all humans should be tolerant and kept on stressing how important tolerance was...and then IMMEDIATELY bashed on homosexuals and how male-male marriages should not be allowed. So...spreading tolerance...but only to people like us? I'm Christian and even I think that guy was stupid.
But that isn't religion (as a general term) that is causing that. Or faith. It is someone using faith/religion as a means to further their hateful views. It is most unfortunate that people do that (understatement of the century) but religion isn't the only vessel that people use to spread their negative views.
Some people (like myself) have gained a lot from religion/faith. If you (anyone) haven't, then fine. I'm not going to say that you're going to hell, or you're wrong, or stupid, or inferior, because that's not my place and I don't know if any of those are true (if I believe that God is the only one that knows something like that then me saying "you're going to hell" is pretty dumb). I wish that more people that were Christians (or anyone, really) were more loving and tolerant. But, in my opinion, if I want to set myself apart from people who are hateful and closed minded, then saying "All Christians are sheep" or "all atheists are self righteous idiots" does nothing but make me pretty much the same thing, just using different words.
ElwoodCuse
CAGiversary!
thanks for the sweeping generalization PAD this message board just can't get enough of them
[quote name='Drocket']Marriage IS a contract. It SHOULD be a private contract between 2 people, but for whatever reason, society seems to think that it needs to keep butting its head in every 15 seconds.
I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.
What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.
What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.[/QUOTE]
OK, it is obvious to me that you live in fantasy land - probably in a gumdrop house on lollipop lane. How old are you? 15? 16? So you would rather spend your entire life with someone you despised because you wrote your name on a piece of paper when you were 23 years old?
Also, please stop with the contract analogy. You have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can break any contract at any time. No one is ever forced to carry out the terms of any contract if they do not want to. Contracts are based on equity principles. There's a thing called "breach" and a thing called "remedy" - it's about making someone whole. Stoning a woman to death for violating the terms of a "contract" solves NOTHING.
I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.
What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.
What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.[/QUOTE]
OK, it is obvious to me that you live in fantasy land - probably in a gumdrop house on lollipop lane. How old are you? 15? 16? So you would rather spend your entire life with someone you despised because you wrote your name on a piece of paper when you were 23 years old?
Also, please stop with the contract analogy. You have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can break any contract at any time. No one is ever forced to carry out the terms of any contract if they do not want to. Contracts are based on equity principles. There's a thing called "breach" and a thing called "remedy" - it's about making someone whole. Stoning a woman to death for violating the terms of a "contract" solves NOTHING.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='javeryh']OK, it is obvious to me that you live in fantasy land - probably in a gumdrop house on lollipop lane. How old are you? 15? 16? So you would rather spend your entire life with someone you despised because you wrote your name on a piece of paper when you were 23 years old? [/quote]
29, actually. And no, I wouldn't. Fortunately, I'm intelligent enough to not marry the first person who comes along that I'm sorta attracted to, unlike far too many people.
Actually, I'm not really against divorce, per se - I think there are legitimate reasons to get divorced. Sometimes. The problem is that far, far, FAR too many people consider marriage to be a temporary proposition. You kinda like someone, so hey, lets get married! If it doesn't work out, we can just get divorced and marry someone else! I don't think this that attitude is a good thing. Divorces should be permitted, but they should be rather hard to get - you don't divorce someone just because its not 'fun' anymore (and you don't get married just do you can have a big party. Marriages should be hard to get, too.)
Of course, divorce is a whole different thing from banging someone on the side. Divorce, though unfortunate, at least has some modicum of honor in it. Adultery is betrayal, plain and simple, of someone who loves and trusts you. And it should carry a penalty, and a stiff one at that.
I know very well that you're laughing at me right now for even using the term. "Honor? Isn't that what Worf went on and on about on Start Trek: the Next Generation? God, I hated Worf - he was always so whiney." Honor is an important value, though, and is the glue that holds the fabric of society together. And one wonders why American society is falling apart at the seams...
[/quote]29, actually. And no, I wouldn't. Fortunately, I'm intelligent enough to not marry the first person who comes along that I'm sorta attracted to, unlike far too many people.
Actually, I'm not really against divorce, per se - I think there are legitimate reasons to get divorced. Sometimes. The problem is that far, far, FAR too many people consider marriage to be a temporary proposition. You kinda like someone, so hey, lets get married! If it doesn't work out, we can just get divorced and marry someone else! I don't think this that attitude is a good thing. Divorces should be permitted, but they should be rather hard to get - you don't divorce someone just because its not 'fun' anymore (and you don't get married just do you can have a big party. Marriages should be hard to get, too.)
Of course, divorce is a whole different thing from banging someone on the side. Divorce, though unfortunate, at least has some modicum of honor in it. Adultery is betrayal, plain and simple, of someone who loves and trusts you. And it should carry a penalty, and a stiff one at that.
I know perfectly well what I'm talking about - I'm talking about what contracts are supposed to be in theory. I'm perfectly aware that, in reality, contracts are barely worth more than toilet paper. Less, really, because toilet paper is actually useful. Contracts are worthless when either side can break them at any time just because they feel like it. When you enter into a contract, you take on obligations, and an honorable person fulfills those obligations even if they're 'not fun'. Honor is considered a quaint notion is the US, though.
I know very well that you're laughing at me right now for even using the term. "Honor? Isn't that what Worf went on and on about on Start Trek: the Next Generation? God, I hated Worf - he was always so whiney." Honor is an important value, though, and is the glue that holds the fabric of society together. And one wonders why American society is falling apart at the seams...
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='jaykrue']Except the law of thermodynamics.
*ba* *dum* *bum*[/QUOTE]
I could easily hijack this thread with a comment about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Evolution, but I'm trying to resist.
*ba* *dum* *bum*[/QUOTE]
I could easily hijack this thread with a comment about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Evolution, but I'm trying to resist.
tauruskatt
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Drocket']Yes, we can. A society is permitted to make any rules of conduct that it wishes, and design any punishment for those crimes that it wishes. As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly, I don't really see why anyone else should be permitted to interfer.[/QUOTE]
So, if a society says, okay, we'll make it okay to put all Jewish people in concentration camps, since it's their fault we are a floundering mess of a place, then we'll just kill them, because that's their punishment. And the rest of the would shouldn't interfere? I know what you're thinking "As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly", right? Well, what do you do if a society really thinks those rules are being applied fairly and justly? Do we not even get to interfere in matters of human dignity anymore??
[quote name='Drocket']I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.
What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.
What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.[/QUOTE]
Here's the two problems with what you're saying that I have~ Firstly these are all "Presumabilities"...you don't live there, and you don't know this woman or her husband or her situation, so you are unable to really say that they are all compentent and willing. What bothers me in your definition of marriage is that you seem to be okay with anything as long as the two people agree on it, guy beats his wife? throws her downt he stairs? performs unliscenced surgical experiments on her? guess it's okay as long as she doesn't complain???? I'm not a big fan of divorce myself, but I'm not taking that avenue away from anybody else who wants it, hell no. I'm not going to say that having kids grow up in a "broken" home where the parents are divorced is going to lead us down to the depths of economic and societal hell, because I think children are better off raised by one or more competent parents who are happy with their lives then by two angry bitter people sucking it up and hating each other because they want out for one reason or another.
Secondly, this is a human being, being crushed to death by large rocks. Even if you are someone who is pro-death pentalty, this is a woman who was not hurting anything or anyone, perhaps with the exception of her own future (because of the society she lives in) even if she had willingly committed this adultery (which by the way, consensual sex requires two consenting partners, so why was the guy only flogged? so much for fairness.) She didn't kill or injure or molest or rape or rob anyone, and she was crushed to death with a pile of large rocks. Does the punishment fit the crime? Don't tell me it's a societal decision~ society knew for ages that the world was flat, didn't they? Thinking it doesn't make the world flat, having goverment rulers decide that stoning a woman to death is acceptable doesn't make it right.
It doesn't have anything to do with contracts or religion, people!! geez, I hate to get on a soapbox here, but it has to do with unchecked fundementalism and gender inequality!
So, if a society says, okay, we'll make it okay to put all Jewish people in concentration camps, since it's their fault we are a floundering mess of a place, then we'll just kill them, because that's their punishment. And the rest of the would shouldn't interfere? I know what you're thinking "As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly", right? Well, what do you do if a society really thinks those rules are being applied fairly and justly? Do we not even get to interfere in matters of human dignity anymore??
[quote name='Drocket']I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.
What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.
What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.[/QUOTE]
Here's the two problems with what you're saying that I have~ Firstly these are all "Presumabilities"...you don't live there, and you don't know this woman or her husband or her situation, so you are unable to really say that they are all compentent and willing. What bothers me in your definition of marriage is that you seem to be okay with anything as long as the two people agree on it, guy beats his wife? throws her downt he stairs? performs unliscenced surgical experiments on her? guess it's okay as long as she doesn't complain???? I'm not a big fan of divorce myself, but I'm not taking that avenue away from anybody else who wants it, hell no. I'm not going to say that having kids grow up in a "broken" home where the parents are divorced is going to lead us down to the depths of economic and societal hell, because I think children are better off raised by one or more competent parents who are happy with their lives then by two angry bitter people sucking it up and hating each other because they want out for one reason or another.
Secondly, this is a human being, being crushed to death by large rocks. Even if you are someone who is pro-death pentalty, this is a woman who was not hurting anything or anyone, perhaps with the exception of her own future (because of the society she lives in) even if she had willingly committed this adultery (which by the way, consensual sex requires two consenting partners, so why was the guy only flogged? so much for fairness.) She didn't kill or injure or molest or rape or rob anyone, and she was crushed to death with a pile of large rocks. Does the punishment fit the crime? Don't tell me it's a societal decision~ society knew for ages that the world was flat, didn't they? Thinking it doesn't make the world flat, having goverment rulers decide that stoning a woman to death is acceptable doesn't make it right.
It doesn't have anything to do with contracts or religion, people!! geez, I hate to get on a soapbox here, but it has to do with unchecked fundementalism and gender inequality!
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='elprincipe']I could easily hijack this thread with a comment about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Evolution, but I'm trying to resist. [/QUOTE]
Hey, the people who try to use to 2nd law to refute evolution deserve to be laughed at, as they show just how wide ranged their ignorance can be. :lol:
[/QUOTE]Hey, the people who try to use to 2nd law to refute evolution deserve to be laughed at, as they show just how wide ranged their ignorance can be. :lol:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='tauruskatt']It doesn't make either right. However, it's hardly fair to compare the two at all, people who bomb abortion clinics for fundemendalist reasons (we'll leave out the religion part) are prosecuted and punished by the law. In this case it was the arm of the law doing the stoning, and the surrounding society being okay with it, which is much more tragic if you ask me.
[/QUOTE]
No, what's really tragic is being in the country with the most liberty in the world, and having radical fundamentalist christians bombing clinics and cheering on the bombers, all while claiming that the government of USA is based on the old testament and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Americans have free will, and the clinic bombers have used this to perform acts that result in blatant suffering. If there is such a tangible force that can be labeled evil, then these fundamentalists are surely in it's black grip.
[/QUOTE]
No, what's really tragic is being in the country with the most liberty in the world, and having radical fundamentalist christians bombing clinics and cheering on the bombers, all while claiming that the government of USA is based on the old testament and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Americans have free will, and the clinic bombers have used this to perform acts that result in blatant suffering. If there is such a tangible force that can be labeled evil, then these fundamentalists are surely in it's black grip.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='tauruskatt']So, if a society says, okay, we'll make it okay to put all Jewish people in concentration camps, since it's their fault we are a floundering mess of a place, then we'll just kill them, because that's their punishment. And the rest of the would shouldn't interfere? I know what you're thinking "As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly", right?[/quote]
Except that in this example, the "fairly and justly" is inherently violated because you're punishing people for what they are, instead of what they've done. Its inherently wrong to punish people for who they are because they have no alternatives to be anything else. Its entirely fair to punish people for what they do, though, because everyone can choose to perform different actions. What actions should be punished and to what degree are what a society are allowed to decide.
Except that in this example, the "fairly and justly" is inherently violated because you're punishing people for what they are, instead of what they've done. Its inherently wrong to punish people for who they are because they have no alternatives to be anything else. Its entirely fair to punish people for what they do, though, because everyone can choose to perform different actions. What actions should be punished and to what degree are what a society are allowed to decide.
You're quite right, I don't know this for a fact. Either party COULD be either forced into the situation or not competent enough to make their own decisions. In either of those cases, an entirely different set of principles applies. If you have any proof that either of these apply in this case, please feel free to provide them. It still won't change my opinion that, IN GENERAL, competent adults should be permitted to do what they want, even if its not in their own best interest.
I'm not a fan of men who abuse their wives, but if she's happy enough with the situation, what exactly gives me/you/anyone the right to step in and 'save' her against her will?
I didn't propose removing divorce as an option.
Other than the husband, whom she betrayed.
Was he committing adultery? He may not have been married. If he was, though, then yes, I would say he should be stoned to death, too. Its only fair.
Are you proposing that we can scientifically determine the perfect punishment for every crime? What exactly IS the correct punishment for breaking your word to remain faithful, betraying someone who loves you, and causing massive emotional distress to your children (assuming you have any) so that you can get a little booty on the side?
Kayden
Banned
On one hand, I like Drokets willingness to let people die... on the other hand... javeryh is a lawyer...
I just don't know who to back...
But Droket does have a point. They knew what they were getting into. More severe punishments for smaller crimes would be a good thing. Either people won't do the crime, or they'll be killed. Both roads lead to the same destination: less crime. Whether its from people become good, or bad people just being killed, I'm all for it.
Also, waaaayyy too many people think they can just do whatever without consequences. Making the consquences more severe would probably sever to drive the point home.
I just don't know who to back...
But Droket does have a point. They knew what they were getting into. More severe punishments for smaller crimes would be a good thing. Either people won't do the crime, or they'll be killed. Both roads lead to the same destination: less crime. Whether its from people become good, or bad people just being killed, I'm all for it.
Also, waaaayyy too many people think they can just do whatever without consequences. Making the consquences more severe would probably sever to drive the point home.
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='tauruskatt']So, if a society says, okay, we'll make it okay to put all Jewish people in concentration camps, since it's their fault we are a floundering mess of a place, then we'll just kill them, because that's their punishment. And the rest of the would shouldn't interfere? I know what you're thinking "As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly", right? Well, what do you do if a society really thinks those rules are being applied fairly and justly? Do we not even get to interfere in matters of human dignity anymore??[/QUOTE]
You guys really need to stop putting things in his mouth and taking him WAY out of context.
The law there isn't stone them because they're women. They aren't being persecuted for who they are, but what they did. I'm sorry, but forcing Jews into this just makes you look dumb. Why is it that when ever anyone wants to 'win' an arguement or prove a point they bring in either the Jews or the Nazis? Making being born Jewish a crime in no war correlates to stoning a woman for adultery. A person can't control/change their ancestory. However, the woman could very well have avoided having sex with another man. Whether you or I or ANYONE agrees with the punishment or not is totally irrelavent. She most likely knew the punishment before she got married and also before she had an afair. Would you like it if they tried to step in over here an put a veil over your face? I very much doubt it. The same applies the other way. You may not like it, but its not your way of life so you should tollerate it. FURTHERMORE, not once did he say anything remotely close to disallowing marriage. All he said was don't
some other guy while married to another. Granted, its near impossible to get a divorce over there... but again, not really our place to judge or interfere.
You guys really need to stop putting things in his mouth and taking him WAY out of context.
The law there isn't stone them because they're women. They aren't being persecuted for who they are, but what they did. I'm sorry, but forcing Jews into this just makes you look dumb. Why is it that when ever anyone wants to 'win' an arguement or prove a point they bring in either the Jews or the Nazis? Making being born Jewish a crime in no war correlates to stoning a woman for adultery. A person can't control/change their ancestory. However, the woman could very well have avoided having sex with another man. Whether you or I or ANYONE agrees with the punishment or not is totally irrelavent. She most likely knew the punishment before she got married and also before she had an afair. Would you like it if they tried to step in over here an put a veil over your face? I very much doubt it. The same applies the other way. You may not like it, but its not your way of life so you should tollerate it. FURTHERMORE, not once did he say anything remotely close to disallowing marriage. All he said was don't
some other guy while married to another. Granted, its near impossible to get a divorce over there... but again, not really our place to judge or interfere.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']Are you proposing that we can scientifically determine the perfect punishment for every crime? What exactly IS the correct punishment for breaking your word to remain faithful, betraying someone who loves you, and causing massive emotional distress to your children (assuming you have any) so that you can get a little booty on the side?[/QUOTE]
Lots of marriages survive an affair. People deserve a chance to redeem themselves for non-violent crimes and capital punishment doesn't offer that. And please don't talk about the emotional distress the affair would cause to the children. I'm sure they would prefer a live and adulterous mother to one who was crushed under very big rocks.
I haven't seen anyone argue that she shouldn't have been punished at all, but stoning her to death for a non-lethal offense is barbaric, misogynistic and simple-minded no matter what religion is doing it.
Lots of marriages survive an affair. People deserve a chance to redeem themselves for non-violent crimes and capital punishment doesn't offer that. And please don't talk about the emotional distress the affair would cause to the children. I'm sure they would prefer a live and adulterous mother to one who was crushed under very big rocks.
I haven't seen anyone argue that she shouldn't have been punished at all, but stoning her to death for a non-lethal offense is barbaric, misogynistic and simple-minded no matter what religion is doing it.
[quote name='Kayden']However, the woman could very well have avoided having sex with another man. [/QUOTE]
Not if that other man was me BIOTCH!
Also, to answer Mr. Bad Example, I don't think that there should be any punishment for adultry or wanting a divorce or whatever. People change and circumstances change. If someone can't recognize that then they've probably never been in a relationship that ended through no real fault of their own. Everyone should have their heart ripped out at least once - it really puts things in perspective and makes you more prepared for the next relationship you get into. It also helps you to find out who you are and sort out what you want out of life...
I also fail to see the difference between dating someone long-term and getting married other than forming a ridiculous contract with the state. Chain yourself to someone for the rest of your life? It's just insane.
... oh wait, I forgot about God. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha......
Not if that other man was me BIOTCH!
Also, to answer Mr. Bad Example, I don't think that there should be any punishment for adultry or wanting a divorce or whatever. People change and circumstances change. If someone can't recognize that then they've probably never been in a relationship that ended through no real fault of their own. Everyone should have their heart ripped out at least once - it really puts things in perspective and makes you more prepared for the next relationship you get into. It also helps you to find out who you are and sort out what you want out of life...
I also fail to see the difference between dating someone long-term and getting married other than forming a ridiculous contract with the state. Chain yourself to someone for the rest of your life? It's just insane.
... oh wait, I forgot about God. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha......
[quote name='Drocket']I'm not a fan of men who abuse their wives, but if she's happy enough with the situation, what exactly gives me/you/anyone the right to step in and 'save' her against her will?[/QUOTE]
OK, I'm done. I suppose it is much more comfortable to be mad and not know it than to be sane and have one's doubts.
OK, I'm done. I suppose it is much more comfortable to be mad and not know it than to be sane and have one's doubts.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='MrBadExample']Lots of marriages survive an affair. People deserve a chance to redeem themselves for non-violent crimes and capital punishment doesn't offer that.[/quote]
Actually, stoning isn't an automatic punishment. It only happens if the husband 'presses charges', so to speak. So presumably, the marriage was pretty much doomed, considering you have a husband willing to kill his wife...
Actually, stoning isn't an automatic punishment. It only happens if the husband 'presses charges', so to speak. So presumably, the marriage was pretty much doomed, considering you have a husband willing to kill his wife...
That's a cultural judgement. In a lot of cultures, a dead relative is considered far better than a living dishonorable relative.
Scroll down. I would agree that stoning is a far stronger punishment than what is deserved for adultery. However, I believe that other cultures have the right to make decisions for themselves without outsiders stepping in to force them to do the 'right' thing. Also, note that its only misogynistic if the punishment is only applied to women.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='javeryh']OK, I'm done. I suppose it is much more comfortable to be mad and not know it than to be sane and have one's doubts.[/QUOTE]
So what exactly are you planning to do with women who choose to stay with abusive husbands? Kidnap them against their will and lock them in a room because you know best?
The reality is that all you can do for them is let them know that you'll be there for them if/when they ever decide to leave their husband, and hope that its before permanent damage is done.
So what exactly are you planning to do with women who choose to stay with abusive husbands? Kidnap them against their will and lock them in a room because you know best?
The reality is that all you can do for them is let them know that you'll be there for them if/when they ever decide to leave their husband, and hope that its before permanent damage is done.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']Actually, stoning isn't an automatic punishment. It only happens if the husband 'presses charges', so to speak. So presumably, the marriage was pretty much doomed, considering you have a husband willing to kill his wife...[/quote]
In this same way Scott Peterson's and OJ Simspon's marriages were doomed as well.
[quote name='Drocket']Scroll down. I would agree that stoning is a far stronger punishment than what is deserved for adultery. However, I believe that other cultures have the right to make decisions for themselves without outsiders stepping in to force them to do the 'right' thing. Also, note that its only misogynistic if the punishment is only applied to women.[/QUOTE]
This is from Amnesty International and sums up my feelings:
So the man is whipped and the woman is killed... sounds misogynistic to me. I haven't seen any mention of evidence or admission of guilt so this could be based solely on the husband's accusation.
In this same way Scott Peterson's and OJ Simspon's marriages were doomed as well.
[quote name='Drocket']Scroll down. I would agree that stoning is a far stronger punishment than what is deserved for adultery. However, I believe that other cultures have the right to make decisions for themselves without outsiders stepping in to force them to do the 'right' thing. Also, note that its only misogynistic if the punishment is only applied to women.[/QUOTE]
This is from Amnesty International and sums up my feelings:
So the man is whipped and the woman is killed... sounds misogynistic to me. I haven't seen any mention of evidence or admission of guilt so this could be based solely on the husband's accusation.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
I already mentioned this, but we don't know if the man was married. If not, he himself was not committing the same crime - he was simply helping someone else commit a crime. Accessory to a crime usually carries a lesser punishment than actually committing a crime, so the fact that the man wasn't stoned to death, without knowing his maritial status, isn't proof of sexual discrimination. If the man was married and the woman not, its quite possible the punishments would have been reversed.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']I already mentioned this, but we don't know if the man was married. If not, he himself was not committing the same crime - he was simply helping someone else commit a crime. Accessory to a crime usually carries a lesser punishment than actually committing a crime, so the fact that the man wasn't stoned to death, without knowing his maritial status, isn't proof of sexual discrimination. If the man was married and the woman not, its quite possible the punishments would have been reversed.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because we so often hear about all the men being stoned to death over there.
Yes, because we so often hear about all the men being stoned to death over there.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']This is the first woman stoned to death since the Taliban left power. That's means there's been exactly one stoning in 3 years - its obviously not that common of punishment anyway.[/QUOTE]
So the fact that it doesn't make international headlines all the time means it's okay?
So the fact that it doesn't make international headlines all the time means it's okay?
Drocket
CAGiversary!
Its not that it hasn't made headlines - its that it hasn't happened in 3 years
This incident only made headlines because its so unusual. So, there's 2 main possibilities:
1) This is the first instance of adultery in Afghanistan in 3 years. If stoning a few people to death can keep that sort of behavior suppressed that much, it may not be entirely bad...
2) Other people have committed adultery, but this woman only got a harsher sentence because of the circumstances. For instance, perhaps she was sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry in the village, she had no remorse for her crime, she has been caught before but refused to change her ways, etc, etc. In this case, its not an arbitrary punishment assigned to anyone who commits the crime, but only for the worst offenders.
This incident only made headlines because its so unusual. So, there's 2 main possibilities:
1) This is the first instance of adultery in Afghanistan in 3 years. If stoning a few people to death can keep that sort of behavior suppressed that much, it may not be entirely bad...
2) Other people have committed adultery, but this woman only got a harsher sentence because of the circumstances. For instance, perhaps she was sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry in the village, she had no remorse for her crime, she has been caught before but refused to change her ways, etc, etc. In this case, its not an arbitrary punishment assigned to anyone who commits the crime, but only for the worst offenders.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']Its not that it hasn't made headlines - its that it hasn't happened in 3 years
This incident only made headlines because its so unusual. So, there's 2 main possibilities:
1) This is the first instance of adultery in Afghanistan in 3 years. If stoning a few people to death can keep that sort of behavior suppressed that much, it may not be entirely bad...
2) Other people have committed adultery, but this woman only got a harsher sentence because of the circumstances. For instance, perhaps she was sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry in the village, she had no remorse for her crime, she has been caught before but refused to change her ways, etc, etc. In this case, its not an arbitrary punishment assigned to anyone who commits the crime, but only for the worst offenders.[/QUOTE]
The Taliban-Lite government in Afghanistan can really use a good spin doctor like you.
This incident only made headlines because its so unusual. So, there's 2 main possibilities:
1) This is the first instance of adultery in Afghanistan in 3 years. If stoning a few people to death can keep that sort of behavior suppressed that much, it may not be entirely bad...
2) Other people have committed adultery, but this woman only got a harsher sentence because of the circumstances. For instance, perhaps she was sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry in the village, she had no remorse for her crime, she has been caught before but refused to change her ways, etc, etc. In this case, its not an arbitrary punishment assigned to anyone who commits the crime, but only for the worst offenders.[/QUOTE]
The Taliban-Lite government in Afghanistan can really use a good spin doctor like you.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Kayden']...But Droket does have a point. They knew what they were getting into. More severe punishments for smaller crimes would be a good thing. Either people won't do the crime, or they'll be killed. Both roads lead to the same destination: less crime. Whether its from people become good, or bad people just being killed, I'm all for it.
Also, waaaayyy too many people think they can just do whatever without consequences. Making the consquences more severe would probably sever to drive the point home.[/QUOTE]
Ironically, Draconian punishments for small crimes like petty shoplifting and marijuana possession only lead to bigger crime. If the crime is the death penalty for both shoplifting a twinkie and stealing a car, then why not steal a car since it's the same risk. The beginning of the movie "Heat" has an excellent real-world example of this concept.
Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino the cop): Once it escalated into a murder one beef for all of 'em after they killed the first two guards, they didn't hesitate. Popped guard number three because... what difference does it make? Why leave a living witness?
IE there's a murder rap waiting for all of them whether they kill two guards or three, so there's no reason to stop at two.
Also, waaaayyy too many people think they can just do whatever without consequences. Making the consquences more severe would probably sever to drive the point home.[/QUOTE]
Ironically, Draconian punishments for small crimes like petty shoplifting and marijuana possession only lead to bigger crime. If the crime is the death penalty for both shoplifting a twinkie and stealing a car, then why not steal a car since it's the same risk. The beginning of the movie "Heat" has an excellent real-world example of this concept.
Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino the cop): Once it escalated into a murder one beef for all of 'em after they killed the first two guards, they didn't hesitate. Popped guard number three because... what difference does it make? Why leave a living witness?
IE there's a murder rap waiting for all of them whether they kill two guards or three, so there's no reason to stop at two.
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='camoor']Ironically, Draconian punishments for small crimes like petty shoplifting and marijuana possession only lead to bigger crime. If the crime is the death penalty for both shoplifting a twinkie and stealing a car, then why not steal a car since it's the same risk. The beginning of the movie "Heat" has an excellent real-world example of this concept.
Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino the cop): Once it escalated into a murder one beef for all of 'em after they killed the first two guards, they didn't hesitate. Popped guard number three because... what difference does it make? Why leave a living witness?
IE there's a murder rap waiting for all of them whether they kill two guards or three, so there's no reason to stop at two.[/QUOTE]
Then we institute pre-death torture
The more bad you were, the longer and more painful it is... Child abuse would be ripping out your nails with pliers. Rape would be slowly pulling on the penis until it came off. Murder would be making out with Richard Simons.
Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino the cop): Once it escalated into a murder one beef for all of 'em after they killed the first two guards, they didn't hesitate. Popped guard number three because... what difference does it make? Why leave a living witness?
IE there's a murder rap waiting for all of them whether they kill two guards or three, so there's no reason to stop at two.[/QUOTE]
Then we institute pre-death torture
The more bad you were, the longer and more painful it is... Child abuse would be ripping out your nails with pliers. Rape would be slowly pulling on the penis until it came off. Murder would be making out with Richard Simons.
tauruskatt
CAGiversary!
many that live deserve death, some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them...? Do not be to too eager to deal out death and judgement" ~Gandalf, lotr:f
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='tauruskatt']many that live deserve death, some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them...? Do not be to too eager to deal out death and judgement" ~Gandalf, lotr:f
[/QUOTE]
That's one of my favorite lines in the book. Too bad the movies are an abomination.
[/QUOTE]That's one of my favorite lines in the book. Too bad the movies are an abomination.
tauruskatt
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Kayden']Any how many 'people' did he kill through out LotR?[/QUOTE]
hey, at least everyone killed was killed in self defence ('cept for the good guys killed...) and fighting over an evil world destroyng power, not just some sex :lol:
hey, at least everyone killed was killed in self defence ('cept for the good guys killed...) and fighting over an evil world destroyng power, not just some sex :lol:
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='tauruskatt']hey, at least everyone killed was killed in self defence ('cept for the good guys killed...) and fighting over an evil world destroyng power, not just some sex :lol:[/QUOTE]
But I thought all was fair in love and war... although, in this case, it's hard to see the distinction between the two. Not killing orc... I doubt Frodo had any emotional attachment to the orcsieses, the wife that got stoned... err... hit with rocks.
What the hell am I rambling about?
:lol:
But I thought all was fair in love and war... although, in this case, it's hard to see the distinction between the two. Not killing orc... I doubt Frodo had any emotional attachment to the orcsieses, the wife that got stoned... err... hit with rocks.
What the hell am I rambling about?
:lol:
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='elprincipe']That's one of my favorite lines in the book. Too bad the movies are an abomination.[/QUOTE]
Oh shut up, fanboy. =P
You would have thought they were just the most amazing thing in the world if they weren't books before hand. The movies got a double bad wrap from the books. Normal people thought they'd just be for nerds and nerds didn't think they'd be nerdy enough.
You can't cram a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie and leave in everything. I've read the books and I own the movies. Which is better? They're both great.
The books may have more details, but they take a week to read. The movies can be watched in one sitting.
Oh shut up, fanboy. =P
You would have thought they were just the most amazing thing in the world if they weren't books before hand. The movies got a double bad wrap from the books. Normal people thought they'd just be for nerds and nerds didn't think they'd be nerdy enough.
You can't cram a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie and leave in everything. I've read the books and I own the movies. Which is better? They're both great.
The books may have more details, but they take a week to read. The movies can be watched in one sitting.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Kayden']Oh shut up, fanboy. =P
You would have thought they were just the most amazing thing in the world if they weren't books before hand. The movies got a double bad wrap from the books. Normal people thought they'd just be for nerds and nerds didn't think they'd be nerdy enough.
You can't cram a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie and leave in everything. I've read the books and I own the movies. Which is better? They're both great.
The books may have more details, but they take a week to read. The movies can be watched in one sitting.[/QUOTE]
Haha, I will willingly admit to being a LotR fanboy since I've read the book literally scores of times. Anyway, I'm not really upset that they left things out because I knew that would have to be the case. Tolkien's world is way, way too rich to be represented fully in a movie, or even three movies, unless it was one of those marathon documentaries like they did on Baseball or something. What did piss me off was the things they changed. They ruined the following characters for a start:
Faramir
Frodo
Gollum
Sam
Pippin
Boromir
Denethor
Eowyn
Arwen
And more than that. That's not counting characters left out or replaced, like Glorfindel, in the name of idiotic political correctness, one of the last things I wanted to see in anything associated with LotR.
But anyway, this is off topic and getting close to a long rant, so I'll stop now.
You would have thought they were just the most amazing thing in the world if they weren't books before hand. The movies got a double bad wrap from the books. Normal people thought they'd just be for nerds and nerds didn't think they'd be nerdy enough.
You can't cram a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie and leave in everything. I've read the books and I own the movies. Which is better? They're both great.
The books may have more details, but they take a week to read. The movies can be watched in one sitting.[/QUOTE]
Haha, I will willingly admit to being a LotR fanboy since I've read the book literally scores of times. Anyway, I'm not really upset that they left things out because I knew that would have to be the case. Tolkien's world is way, way too rich to be represented fully in a movie, or even three movies, unless it was one of those marathon documentaries like they did on Baseball or something. What did piss me off was the things they changed. They ruined the following characters for a start:
Faramir
Frodo
Gollum
Sam
Pippin
Boromir
Denethor
Eowyn
Arwen
And more than that. That's not counting characters left out or replaced, like Glorfindel, in the name of idiotic political correctness, one of the last things I wanted to see in anything associated with LotR.
But anyway, this is off topic and getting close to a long rant, so I'll stop now.
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='elprincipe']Haha, I will willingly admit to being a LotR fanboy since I've read the book literally scores of times. Anyway, I'm not really upset that they left things out because I knew that would have to be the case. Tolkien's world is way, way too rich to be represented fully in a movie, or even three movies, unless it was one of those marathon documentaries like they did on Baseball or something. What did piss me off was the things they changed. They ruined the following characters for a start:
Faramir
Frodo
Gollum
Sam
Pippin
Boromir
Denethor
Eowyn
Arwen
And more than that. That's not counting characters left out or replaced, like Glorfindel, in the name of idiotic political correctness, one of the last things I wanted to see in anything associated with LotR.
But anyway, this is off topic and getting close to a long rant, so I'll stop now.[/QUOTE]
Changed to be PC? Its been a long time since I read the books. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Faramir
Frodo
Gollum
Sam
Pippin
Boromir
Denethor
Eowyn
Arwen
And more than that. That's not counting characters left out or replaced, like Glorfindel, in the name of idiotic political correctness, one of the last things I wanted to see in anything associated with LotR.
But anyway, this is off topic and getting close to a long rant, so I'll stop now.[/QUOTE]
Changed to be PC? Its been a long time since I read the books. I have no idea what you're talking about.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Kayden']Changed to be PC? Its been a long time since I read the books. I have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about Arwen filling Glorfindel's role. No reason to do that except they wanted more women in leading roles. Disgusting (although the actress who plays Arwen is truly beautiful).
I'm talking about Arwen filling Glorfindel's role. No reason to do that except they wanted more women in leading roles. Disgusting (although the actress who plays Arwen is truly beautiful).
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm talking about Arwen filling Glorfindel's role. No reason to do that except they wanted more women in leading roles. Disgusting (although the actress who plays Arwen is truly beautiful).[/QUOTE]
Or maybe they thought it would be too confusing with the already long list of characters.
Or maybe they thought it would be too confusing with the already long list of characters.
tauruskatt
CAGiversary!
tom bombadill I don't miss because he didn't *truely* efect the plot irreplacably. I get really mad about the eowyn thing though, because she goes from swooning over aragorn to smiling at his coronation and they leave out her romance with faramir pretty much completely and it just makes her look flakey 
umm...right. /rant
umm...right. /rant
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Wow, PAD, you still got your hate on, don't you.
I thought after a year or so all these racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim posts that try to label them all as extremists would have gotten old.
Do you still have your KKK hood?
I thought after a year or so all these racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim posts that try to label them all as extremists would have gotten old.
Do you still have your KKK hood?
uzumaki_star
CAGiversary!
quackzilla, you cut deep. That statement made me feel bad, if I had feelings.
bread's done