|
Shia rape victim sentenced to jail and 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and you ing criticise our favourite football team for lack of effort :p |
Well it's certainly not "our" favourite football team is it! It's certainly not my favourite football team by any stretch of the imagination! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well it's certainly not "our" favourite football team is it! It's certainly not my favourite football team by any stretch of the imagination! |
haha, touche.
so then, when it comes to internationals, esp the world cup, who are you cheering, screaming, and crying for? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
haha, touche.
so then, when it comes to internationals, esp the world cup, who are you cheering, screaming, and crying for? |
England (minus the crying, I've only ever cried over Sheff Utd, despite coming close with England in Euro 96)
That's IF we qualify for the World Cup!
In Euro 08 I shall either be supporting Croatia or Poland (probably Poland) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
England (minus the crying, I've only ever cried over Sheff Utd, despite coming close with England in Euro 96)
That's IF we qualify for the World Cup!
In Euro 08 I shall either be supporting Croatia or Poland (probably Poland) |
thank , i was gonna have to come and get all republican on your arse otherwise.
i cried in 98 and 2002 :( was 96 when we were beaten by germany? i didnt cry but i was ing angry :/ |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
thank , i was gonna have to come and get all republican on your arse otherwise.
i cried in 98 and 2002 :( was 96 when we were beaten by germany? i didnt cry but i was ing angry :/ |
Yea when Germany knocked us out on penalties in the semis. I didn't cry but me and me dad just sat staring at the TV for about half an hour in total silence. But nowadays I honestly don't think I could ever get that worked up over England... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | It was also a sharp turn from a statement Saturday in which the Saudi Justice Ministry condemned the 19-year-old woman — raped by seven men and then sentenced to six months prison and 200 lashes — as an adulteress who had allegedly confessed to cheating on her husband.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5...Hq0oGAD8T68JUO4 |
someone heard pkc's "condemnation" |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
someone heard pkc's "condemnation" |
lol sorry I missed your point in your earlier quote...still doesn't make sense to me, what exactly is the metaphor there? :conf:
But interesting development...without any insight I didn't want to say anything further about the judge's decision, and perhaps this is just a mud slinging contest (wouldn't be surprised based on my experiences with various Saudi ministries during my residency there) but it goes to show there may be relevant points beneath the surface. Yes, I know the punishment still seems harsh to you universalists, but "eye for an eye" you know? That's where capital punishment comes from...
I guess all humanists by definition are opposed to capital punishment? (not sure what humanists are to be honest; never came across this term in my studies).
Also, LOL at PKC...I feel the same sometimes, when I see George's post, for example. And I wanted to quote the same thing!!! :haha: that he starts by saying he's not gonna bother reading our posts...so why would we bother reading his?! :whip: :mad: :p |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | Originally posted by fayraree Also, LOL at PKC...I feel the same sometimes, when I see George's post, for example. And I wanted to quote the same thing!!! :haha: that he starts by saying he's not gonna bother reading our posts...so why would we bother reading his?! :whip: :mad: :p |
Because my post was in response to your (very) earlier comments about the Saudi legal system not representing Islam, not to do with any of the debate that has since followed (as I hadn't been keeping up). It was an apology if I repeated anything as I would not be responding to anything you and pkc had been saying to each other... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
I have to admit, I have only a limited understanding of Islamic inspired law; however, much of what I do understand I find deplorable. Of course, my values and subsequently my opinions on law and justice are heavily influanced by my being raised and educated in a western democracy established on Christian values tempered by humanism. Given my background and socialization, I would not choose to live in a state that was governed by Islamic law, rather, I choose to continue living only in states governed by legal systems akin to my own sensibilities.
Simillarly, those who were raised and socialized in societies that are heavily influanced by Islam likely have values and opinions on law and justice that are in keeping with Islamic law. They choose to remain citizens and residents of these Islamic states because this system of law and life is acceptable (if not prefered) to them. Should their values and sensibilities change they have two options; they can leave (let's not forget that all these states have freedom of mobility) or they can work to bring about change (which is happening in many places). The overwhelming majority approve of this system of law and are willing to subject themselves to it.
What all of you seem to be overlooking is the social contract. Any person who chooses to reside in a state is choosing to be subject to the laws, rules, codes of conduct, and cultural expectations of that state. The fact that we in the west, raised in a society governed by Christian and humanist values, are agast at the legal systems of the Islamic world, frankly, makes absolutely no difference and is unimportant. As long as the citizens of Islamic states are in agreement with the law there is neither political or ethical cause to change it. Only when the citizens elect to abandon this system (either through modification from within or emigration) will it lose it's legitimacy, and legitimacy in the eyes of the populace is the only thing that makes a law just. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What all of you seem to be overlooking is the social contract. Any person who chooses to reside in a state is choosing to be subject to the laws, rules, codes of conduct, and cultural expectations of that state |
That is not what the 'social contract' means at all, even if you'd got the correct definition the 'social contract' is bull anyway because nobody has a choice but to reside in their own country. For someone to change nationalities, that is a decision by other people, not by the individual. Only within the EU is it possible for an individual to have the right to choose which country they live in.
Your definition of 'social contract' suggests a state has the right to do anything to its citizens, but the real definition, in very simple terms, means that individuals give up certain rights (like the right to harm others) in return for security from the state. The state must guarantee human and civil rights, and the theory envisions a liberal democracy - not any old system of government. Saudi Arabia is not a liberal democracy and it certainly does not guarantee human or civil rights. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
the [social contract] theory envisions a liberal democracy - not any old system of government. |
Where did you get this idea?
(and understood re: your last post...but to be fair you should still take the time to read later posts in an attempt to make yourself appear to be (as brief as a moment it is) intelligent! :p j/k) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
Where did you get this idea? |
Because a key tenent is that the state must guarantee human and civil rights, and as far as I am aware, the only political system that guarantee these are liberal democracies. If citizens of a country do not have a say in the way the country is run and they have no human rights then that state is not a liberal democracy and it does not guarantee civil liberties and human rights, therefore, the 'social contract' theory cannot apply...
...that and all the original authors were liberals |
|
|
|
|
