Before the savages came over from Europe and brought death, disease and destruction, the people of Canada were developing a far more enlightened approach:
Mohawk leader Joseph Brant
Quote:
In the government you call civilized, the happiness of the people is constantly sacrificed to the splendor of empire. Hence your codes of criminal and civil laws have had their origin ; hence your dungeons and prisons. I will not enlarge on an idea so singular in civilized life, and perhaps disagreeable to you, and will only observe, that among us we have no prisons; we have no pompous parade of courts; we have no written laws ; and yet judges are as highly revered amongst us as they are among you, and their decisions are as much regarded.
The only time someone should be locked away from the public, is when they are a danger to the well being of the people. Betraying a loved one by committing adultery in a monogamous relationship is a very evil thing, but the state has no right to do anything about it.
Just another example of your lack of self control. I'm sure this weakness will one day manifest itself in actions that will result in the prison sentence that you should have received anyways for your adultery. (Emphasis Rerun's)
It was a tongue in cheek comment. Maybe I should have added a smiley for the simpletons in the room but I generally don't tailor my posts to the lcd.
Quote:
Rerun pointed this out:
You may not condone stoning as a punishment for adultery, but you certainly condone imprisonment as a just punishment for committing adultery. Rerun caught that. I caught that. You're trying to weasel your way out of it now, despite the fact you left a giant paper trail for everyone to follow.
Like I said, I made one tongue in cheek comment. Not even close to a giant paper trail. Other than that I have stated nothing other than adultery should be considered a criminal offence. A criminal offence does not necessarily mean prison nor does it mean stoning to death.
Quote:
Additionally, I explained the difference between dodging consequence and taking responsibility. which by saying this...
...you clearly demonstrate that you can't tell the difference.
You're the one who can't tell the difference. He's saying he's been punished plenty and that he was only 24 when he did it.
Quote:
And lastly, for the aforementioned gem* about being unable to control oneself, you imply that it is absolutely certain pylon is incapable of redeeming himself for his past infidelity and that one day his past will catch up to him and finally dish him the punishment YOU think he deserves. Once a thief, always a thief, eh?
More like once a cheater, always a cheater. Rarely do people gain morals once they've hit adulthood.
It was a tongue in cheek comment. Maybe I should have added a smiley for the simpletons in the room but I generally don't tailor my posts to the lcd.
If it weren't for the fact your original posts have been quoted so many times, you might have been able to retcon and make this true. Fortunately, you cannot.
And even if I were feeling generous, and gave you the benefit of the doubt, if you indeed were making a tongue in cheek comment over a primarily-text medium, then yes, you ought to make that clear, lest your words be construed as pretty cut-and-dry.
But I don't believe you for an eye-blink
Quote:
Like I said, I made one tongue in cheek comment. Not even close to a giant paper trail. Other than that I have stated nothing other than adultery should be considered a criminal offence. A criminal offence does not necessarily mean prison nor does it mean stoning to death.
You're right about stoning, but you're wrong about prison. If convicted of a criminal offense, a defendant almost always does time, and may additionally be fined. The time may be served in something as minor as house-arrest or community service, all the way up to maximum security, but in some way, shape, or form, they lose their freedom until the sentence is satisfied.
Quote:
You're the one who can't tell the difference. He's saying he's been punished plenty and that he was only 24 when he did it.
AND that it was a mistake on his part, AND that his punishment was rightly deserved.
I'd make a remark about common sense and your teeth, but that would be unbecoming of me, so instead I'll use the more appropriate internet vernacular and simply state:
Quote:
More like once a cheater, always a cheater. Rarely do people gain morals once they've hit adulthood.
And to that, good sir, I say "Thank the powers that be that we will never have to stand before you in a tribunal that matters."
More like once a cheater, always a cheater. Rarely do people gain morals once they've hit adulthood
What a bs statement, people change their ways all the time. People make mistakes, its called being human so stop acting like your perfect because your not.
Aannnnd the most ignorant statement of 2010 on Calgary Puck goes to.....
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Last edited by Bobblehead; 07-06-2010 at 08:27 PM.
Reason: changed hotlink to hosted image
The Following User Says Thank You to Bobblehead For This Useful Post:
No one has a right to tell people how to run their society. What we view as savage is how they deal with problems. The west needs to wake up and realize we can't play moral authority.
Now this case in question is bogus. As stated previously under islam you cant find someone guilty unless you have multiple witnesses.
If it weren't for the fact your original posts have been quoted so many times, you might have been able to retcon and make this true. Fortunately, you cannot.
Are you saying I'd go back and change my post if it hadn't been quoted? I've never done this so stop attempting to slander me.
Quote:
And even if I were feeling generous, and gave you the benefit of the doubt, if you indeed were making a tongue in cheek comment over a primarily-text medium, then yes, you ought to make that clear, lest your words be construed as pretty cut-and-dry.
Most reasonably intelligent people would be able to see that it was tongue in cheek. Next time I'll put it in big bright neon green letters just for you! Is that good enough for you?
Quote:
But I don't believe you for an eye-blink
I think that's more a reflection of your intelligence than anything to do with me.
Quote:
You're right about stoning, but you're wrong about prison. If convicted of a criminal offense, a defendant almost always does time, and may additionally be fined. The time may be served in something as minor as house-arrest or community service, all the way up to maximum security, but in some way, shape, or form, they lose their freedom until the sentence is satisfied.
For summary conviction offences that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government (which includes all criminal law), section 787 of the Criminal Code of Canada specifies that, unless another punishment is provided for by law, the maximum penalty for a summary conviction offence is a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, a fine of $5000 or both.
Once again you are wrong. Keep in mind that first time offenders rarely get the maximum.
Quote:
AND that it was a mistake on his part, AND that his punishment was rightly deserved.
I'd make a remark about common sense and your teeth, but that would be unbecoming of me, so instead I'll use the more appropriate internet vernacular and simply state:
And to that, good sir, I say "Thank the powers that be that we will never have to stand before you in a tribunal that matters."
Is there a point to this or are you just throwing random gibberish on the wall in the hope that some of it will stick and fool people into believing you're smart?
Is not stoning a woman based on hearsay a unique characteristic of our culture? I don't think so. I think murder is murder.
To the Iranian's credit, many of them have been trying to fight back.
If anyone is interested, here is Ujal Dosanjh's take on honour killings, which seems relevant:
Quote:
‘Political correctness prevents us from demanding that the cultural norms that justify such heinous practices as honour killings have no place anywhere in the world’
The problem I have is that Westerners routinely bring up this idea of progress. There is no progress. There is civilization and barbarism. We need to hold onto our long-held tradition of civilization because we, like all peoples, are constantly in danger of losing what is so precious and descending into barbarism.
On the whole though, the West is more civilized than the barbarians running Iran.
I think that civilization does progress because do not live in a perfect society, and we will always try to make our society perfect. We invented the idea of 'human rights' and we are still trying to understand what that means, and how important they are. Can 'human rights' trump 'cultural rights'?
