Yeah…“for the most part”…you mean, except for those trivial, totally innocent people who have also been put to death here?
“Our killing’s better than your killing”…na na na na na…bet that slogan flies well with your lynch mob buddies.
Thank you for putting that into perspective. Dick.
Deary me. That isn’t what I’m saying at all. I merely confirmed DMark’s assertion that the death penalty looks barbaric - to me. I don’t think the comparison needs to be brought into every discussion, as you yourself strawmanisize. But I do believe it’s good to have some perspective.
Mate, you definitely owe me a new Sarcasm-o-Meter® now. There’s springs and cogs and shit all over my living room floor.
Actually, this is another example of either your lack of reading skills or honesty. The examples you provided are clearly abuses of power (as are often found in authoritarian states, clearly including Islamist theocracies). They are not examples of Shari’a law as it is written, but abuses carried out by powerful people.
Rune, I am glad that you have finally clarified that you had intended to indicate only the Iranian mullahs. Such was not the case in your previous posts. (While the term Islamofascism (that you introduced in only your most recent post) has been used by a few Neo-Cons on a few rare occasions to refer to the the people you are excoriating, the phrase “Islamic fascism” does not have even that limited currency; it looked very much like a general condemnation of Islam. If you choose to coin your own language to describe things, you will just have to accept that not everyone will understand your meaning when you declare something a real glory.)
I think one important thing to consider here is that under the system of law that most of the rest of the world adheres to, the girl would have committed no crime at all…and no judge would have been able to manipulate his nation’s laws so as to make it possible for him to string her up like he did.
In other words, this abominable set of laws, in addition to the absurd and outrageous way it treats women, is what made it possible for the judge to do what he did.
This is why I’m glad to see Afghanistanis and Iraqis being liberated to live more free and civilized lives. The more that people in these repressed countries can see their neighbors living happily and freely the more they will want it for themselves, and eventually these barbarians will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age.
It’s long been said you can’t fight progress and that’s just what these repressive governments are trying to do. My opinion is this is much of what the insurgents in Iraq are afraid of. They know once progress sets in, their cause is lost (barring another repressive take-over like in Iran). But these repressive governments are fighting a losing battle with progress. The only question is how long before they lose power and how many more people are going to have to suffer before it finally happens.
I would think he was probably talking about crimes other than murder for which a person could be executed. Treason and spying, for example.
Good, that would be too wearying. We can follow your lead as to frequency of silly xenophobic similes (come to think of it, that’s a fatiguing prospect in itself).
Or when someone expresses outrage at a disgusting abuse of human rights, one could just agree, disagree, or stay out of the discussion entirely, without dragging in all sorts of extraneous baggage.
Worth some thought.
Actually, that’s WHY I’m against the death penalty – not everybody who suffers it is guilty – on the evidence as it were. Still, we’re TRYING to punish MURDERERS and such here, not girls who like boys too much and aren’t sufficiently contrite about it. Our killings ARE better than theirs … and if you can’t see that, you’re just not paying attention.
I’m not aware of any case in which it’s been shown that an innocent man or woman has been executed. Hasn’t our standard 12 to 20 year appeals process been pretty successful in doing its job and keeping innocent people from being excecuted?
People have been taken off death row after many years by DNA evidence. One presumes innocent people were killed before DNA was used.
I understand people not being comfortable with the death penalty because innocent people could and certainly have been executed. I don’t personally have any problem with it if it can be proven with absolute certainty that the guilty person is the one doing the dying. However, I have no problem with people being against the death penalty in this country.
What I do have a problem with is people comparing an innocent 16 year old girl being murdered via a horrific court system and an unconscionable set of laws with the death penalty in this country. If someone truly can’t understand the difference, I think they are beyond reasoning with.
Damn straight. I was teaching the Shirley Jackson short story “The Lottery” once, and for those who don’t know, it’s a darkly satirical story about an isolated village that chooses one person to die every summer, in the belief that this sacrifice will bring a good harvest. They’ve been doing it for so long that it’s become a habit, even while other villages have given it up.
Anyway…I was stunned when a student actually said that we should not condemn the villagers because stoning someone to death was “just a part of their culture.”
I, too, was fed the multicultural partylines in college. Thank goodness I got over it.
Right and wrong depends upon what we were taught as kiddies. There is no Aristotilian Good and Bad to compare cultures to.
I happen to believe the Judge is an evil son of a bitch because of the culture I was taught by. The Arab kid who killed his Mother for adultry is not worse than me, only very, very stupid because he believes differently.
Who in here says there is no difference? The difference is merely so negligible as to put them in the same effective category. Sure, a goodly amount of murderers and others who deserve death have been executed by America, but a fair number of low-lifes have been excuted under Sharia law or its various interpretations.
And a high percentage have also been executed unfairly under both American and Mideast justice. While the difference in percentages is certainly quite high (in favor of the Americans,) it remains just that: a difference in percentage and not in flavor (specifically, here, referring to the death penalty.)
About the only qualitative difference is that determination of guilt or innocence is determined by random people rather than by a judge. Now, while there are certainly American judges who are prejudiced against certain groups of people, I wouldn’t think that the average American judge is MORE prejudiced than a jury. So the inevitable counter-charge that “oh, but we have a JURY system here that will SURELY be able to determine who is guilty or not without any doubt whatsoever!” can also fall by the wayside.
Holy shit! You really believe this?
Holy shit! Putting murderers to death and putting sassy, sexual active teenagers to death is the same flavor?
Holy shit! You think that’s the only qualitative difference?
Well Man, like the old saying goes: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You’re entitled to think this, and I’m entitled to think it’s total bullshit. And believe me, I do.
One of the more intelligent quotes I’ve seen in the Pit.
Originally posted by Pulykamell
. Yes, you’re correct. There are more incidents to choose from, aren’t there?
I’d love to admit having a thesis of destroying Islamic culture, but then I’d have to admit my desire to get rid of all religions, huh.
Wait a minute… 
Originally posted by tomndebb
Oh, I see. Like the seventhousand-eighthundred-and-thirtythree [or thereabouts] other examples, right?
Don’t you think it’s high time those powerful people get the hell kicked out of their jobs?
Why do you think that hasn’t happened yet?
On a personal note: May I ask if you’re a muslim? If so, are you a cleric? Thanks.
Xenophobia? You’re clearly experiencing some kind of cognitive dissonance.
You may note that my entrance into this discussion was in response to duffer’s silliness. Whereas yours seems to be simply to hound me about a practice I’m not even indulging in. Your many talents would be better served elsewhere.
Yes, I think the theocracy of Iran is a bad thing.
It has not yet happened because the U.S. (in the sort of blind hatred of all things “communist” that you seem to advcocate toward all things “Muslim”) made the stupid decision to prop up a truly nasty dictator for 30 years who deliberately suppressed many Muslim practices in Iran. This gave the most ardent Islamists the cachet of being the “real” opponents of the Shah and when the revolution came, they were able to sieze power with the help of more moderate people who did not realize their ultimate goals. Once in power, they consolidated that power and used it to impose a theocracy. Perhaps if the U.S. had not propped up the Shah during the worst of his excesses in opposing nearly all forms of Islam, the revolution could have been carried out by a more secular group and the Islamists might not have come to power.
This is the reason I oppose mindless bashing in these sorts of cases. We set up an undifferentiated hatred for “them” that equates Stalin and Allende (in the fight against “communism”) or bin Laden and al-Sadr, now, then we prop up people like the Shah or the Saud family whose fall actually causes us greater grief. The people of Iran have been struggling against the theocracy for over 20 years, but if we wage war against Islam (instead of the specific theocrats) we will send the rest of the Iranians into the camp of the theocrats.
(No, I am not Muslim. You sound as if you are still pretending that I have defended the action of the judge, rather than noting that I have only sought to avoid broad-brush mischaracterizations.)
No actually it’s not. This is yet another example of Sharia laws as written and understood by the Mullahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It even has the stamp of approval by the Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi head of the Islamic Judiciary. It makes me wonder what you actually think Sharia is (you never answered that last I asked in this thread) – you certainly seem to believe it is great in some ideal pure interpretation, and it’s just that all the judges are abusing it. Also again you seem to insist on a true and false interpretation of Sharia.
Well tomndebb (Tom and Debb?) you have to go out more if you think Islamofascism is only used “by a few Neo-Cons on a few rare occasions”, at least one of us have to start frequenting other sites since Islamofascism seem to be me to be more or less the Nom de Guerra of Islamic extremists. Incidentally a term that was coined by Christopher Hitchen – hardly your average friendly neighbour Neo-Con.
Originally posted by tomndebb
I’m thrilled to see the word: seem.
I’m not into hating people. I hate religions.
Thanks for the explanation.