Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Wow. A looot of text here. I'll just say this:

"That's not very nice"

I agree with Samus!
The politics in Iran are kinda messed up right now!
I really hate that bastard (iranian President...)

You mean "Ack! Mah dinna jacket!"?

Hmm this reminds me of the Blood Dolphins thread. When people replied " its the law , they are allowed to kill dolphins so who cares "

Well , lets respect their law , no matter how barbaric it is then. /rolleyes.

At the end of the day its as i always said , its only an issue if you care.

LunaHound wrote:Hmm this reminds me of the Blood Dolphins thread. When people replied " its the law , they are allowed to kill dolphins so who cares "

Well , lets respect their law , no matter how barbaric it is then. /rolleyes.

At the end of the day its as i always said , its only an issue if you care.

Actually, you'll notice one large difference between the two issues.

One is the mistreatment of animals, one is of humans.

MasterDRD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Poastan in a troll thread.

Surely this post is some clever ruse? Perhaps a placeholder for some 3 page long post addressing every other poster in the thread with counterarguments?

It was almost a solid page of pain before I got in here. Sometimes brevity is the most powerful tool in the garage.

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Hmm this reminds me of the Blood Dolphins thread. When people replied " its the law , they are allowed to kill dolphins so who cares "

Well , lets respect their law , no matter how barbaric it is then. /rolleyes.

At the end of the day its as i always said , its only an issue if you care.

Actually, you'll notice one large difference between the two issues.

One is the mistreatment of animals, one is of humans.

I treat them both with equal respect.

LunaHound wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Hmm this reminds me of the Blood Dolphins thread. When people replied " its the law , they are allowed to kill dolphins so who cares "

Well , lets respect their law , no matter how barbaric it is then. /rolleyes.

At the end of the day its as i always said , its only an issue if you care.

Actually, you'll notice one large difference between the two issues.

One is the mistreatment of animals, one is of humans.

I treat them both with equal respect.

Really?

So you're a vegan?

Never swatted a fly?

I think you are deliberately trying to miss my point monsterrain

LunaHound wrote:I think you are deliberately trying to miss my point monsterrain

Nope. Just betting that when it comes down to it you really don't treat them equally when it involves your own personal comfort or convenience.

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I think you are deliberately trying to miss my point monsterrain

Nope. Just betting that when it comes down to it you really don't treat them equally when it involves your own personal comfort or convenience.

The point i'll repeat again is
Humans will fall back to the convenience of a law when they are confronted with an issue they dont actively care / sympathize for.

Let me give you an example. China on average compared to middle eastern countries treats their people with less human rights.
Do you see N.America caring about that? No.
Then why all of a sudden care about the dead woman's country and their practice all of a sudden?

Probably to paint a picture of how barbaric they are and justify USA using more force when dealing with them ne?

Oh and back to the animal vs human thingy monster rain.
Let me just say , i find some human beings to be lower than even animals.

LunaHound wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I think you are deliberately trying to miss my point monsterrain

Nope. Just betting that when it comes down to it you really don't treat them equally when it involves your own personal comfort or convenience.

The point i'll repeat again is
Humans will fall back to the convenience of a law when they are confronted with an issue they dont actively care / sympathize for.

Let me give you an example. China on average compared to middle eastern countries treats their people with less human rights.
Do you see N.America caring about that? No.
Then why all of a sudden care about the dead woman's country and their practice all of a sudden?

Probably to paint a picture of how barbaric they are and justify USA using more force when dealing with them ne?

Oh and back to the animal vs human thingy monster rain.
Let me just say , i find some human beings to be lower than even animals.

Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

Monster Rain wrote:Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

I can , but i know people dont.
Maybe its politics or what not , but certainly you cant deny some people are rather "selective" on what countries
deserves our sympathy for human rights?

djones520 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having her picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

That wasn't the argument that was made. Grignard is questioning whether or not we have the right to force our morality on to other nations. This is not the same thing as stating that we cannot judge another nation due to its laws and apparent moral system.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Wouldn't be surprised if the Junta starts to collapse before long. Most inevitably do.

Iran is not governed by the military.

However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Out of approximately 1200 executions in the US since 1976, none have ever been PROVEN to have been in error.

Please bear that in mind as you make claims such as these.

So the world is an ugly place?

I'm shocked.

It's unfortunate that a region which played an important role in the development of early human civilization has fallen into the state it is in today.

It's also sadly true that executing people for ridiculous reasons isn't just limited to Iran, Saudi Arabia was set to execute someone for "witchcraft" because he made some predictions on Lebanese TV.

LunaHound wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

I can , but i know people dont.
Maybe its politics or what not , but certainly you cant deny some people are rather "selective" on what countries
deserves our sympathy for human rights?

Sure some people are.

I still don't know what you're getting at, exactly. Do you have to take all the world's problems into account before you condemn an act as unpleasant as that described in the OP? I would say no.

Phryxis wrote:

However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Out of approximately 1200 executions in the US since 1976, none have ever been PROVEN to have been in error.

Please bear that in mind as you make claims such as these.

yes I can google too, but thanks for the demonstration...

Phryxis wrote:

However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Out of approximately 1200 executions in the US since 1976, none have ever been PROVEN to have been in error.

Please bear that in mind as you make claims such as these.

Nonertheless there is a significant rate of miscarriages of justice in capital cases.

According to Amnesty USA anyway.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=engamr510232007

Monster Rain wrote:

Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

Actually, dolphins are mammals and not fish.


As for the whole situation I say we bomb people to start following our way of civil rights. We'll bomb China into freeing Tibet, we'll bomb Iran to make them stop stoning women, we'll bomb Saudi Arabia to stop trying people for witchcraft, we'll bomb England to make them stop destroying their citizens' teeth, and we'll bomb California to make them just stop.

Did I mention that the Iranian president has unveiled a new weapon that he calls his "ambassador of death"?

It is a shame that such an important part of our world has managed to become so screwed up by the 1,000 year old, woman hating, tribal religion that is Islam.

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Can't you care about China's human rights as well as Iran's? Not that it even has any bearing on comparing hideous human rights violations to killing a glorified fish, which is somewhat incomprehensible to me.

As to your last point, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get into another human rights vs animal rights debate. The last one was idiotic enough.

Actually, dolphins are mammals and not fish.

As for the whole situation I say we bomb people to start following our way of civil rights. We'll bomb China into freeing Tibet, we'll bomb Iran to make them stop stoning women, we'll bomb Saudi Arabia to stop trying people for witchcraft, we'll bomb England to make them stop destroying their citizens' teeth, and we'll bomb California to make them just stop.

I know that, Jacques Cousteau!

As to the other thing, I don't know if anyone is calling for Iran to be bombed over this, but it's at all not off base to say that the people who treat women in this way are fething animals.

WarOne wrote:Liberals and Internationalists tell us Americans to be tolerant of other cultures and religions. They also feel obligated to be outraged when things like this happen (Conservatives would be obligated to bomb them to the Stone Age, but hey, let's just veer away from what people on the right would do).

And yet nothing will happen.

First of all, no, liberals and internationalists don't tell people to be tolerant of all things done in all countries as a matter of course, and not all conservatives believe in bombing everyone back to the stone age. That's just a gross simplification of a very complicated subject.

My view, which is strongly internationalist, is that there are many awful things going on around the world, and stoning is one of the worst. The point is that high minded wagging of the finger, economic or military action doesn't achieve anything. It can be a tough road to travel, but closing off a bad government will actually help make it more stable, North Korea has survived this long because it is isolated. In the cities in Iran there is a strong progressive movement. I mean, what exactly would you do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I'm a little confused. War said it was for adultry early on and then later said she murdered her husband. We execute people for murder in the united states too. I'm not sure how he thinks bombing the Iranians would improve their legal system, or how it makes the united states a bunch of hypocrites if we dont go to war over every injustice anywhere in the world. So the Iranians are a bunch of barbarians. world keeps turnin.
AF

Executions in the US have nowhere near the cruelty of a stoning. I'm no fan of any executions, but there really is a difference between lethal injection and stoning someone slowly, each rock thrown individually, so that our face is steadily pulverised over what can be in excess of an hour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:It is a shame that such an important part of our world has managed to become so screwed up by the 1,000 year old, woman hating, tribal religion that is Islam.

Oh for feth's sake.

People who don't treat women this way are also animals, specifically the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.

Nonertheless there is a significant rate of miscarriages of justice in capital cases.

Well, it depends on your definition of "significant," but certainly there have been cases overturned where people were on death row.

But then again, that's why they spend so long on death row. It's not like a judgement is passed, and the next day the dude is dead.

As far as AI goes, they're a generally positive organization, but they're a lot like PETA. Excessive and at times disingenuous. Their intolerance for injustice, real or imaginary, has made them zealots who can't entirely be counted on for objective reviews of reality. Not that that changes the fact that some people have been falsely sent to death row, and PROBABLY some even executed. It also doesn't change the fact that no proof has ever been made of an unjust execution.

Honestly, I don't know how people can be "in favor of the death penalty," but not in favor of it in the real world, where mistakes are made. In what world would these people favor the death penalty, exactly?

As time goes by, and technology improves, we will only get better at correctly identifying the guilty.

I don't entirely agree with Blackstone's notion that it's better to let ten guilty men free than to execute one innocent. It's my feeling that if one of those guilty men kills an innocent, you've just broken even, and if two of them do, you're behind the curve.

Furthermore, in a lot of the cases that wrongful execution is presumed to have ocurred, the person executed was was hardly an angel.

I've seen arguments made that show the recidivism rate in people accused of murder, and show that if these people would simply be executed, even if a percentage were innocent, it would end up saving innocent lives.

I have never believed in the idea that the government should seek to avoid doing ANY wrong, as Blackstone seems to suggest. Instead, I think government needs to recognize that it rountinely destroys lives and kills people, either directly or indirectly, and given this reality, it should seek to minimize the evil it does, and maximize the good. To pretend that it can avoid evil deeds through caution or inaction is an empty hope.

Honestly, though, the number of people being executed in this country is so vanishingly small relative to the number of people and number of crimes, that it's really a non-issue. People argue about it at great length, but it has almost no real relevance to anyone's actual life. In 34 years we've executed about 1200 people. That's 35 a year, from a population in excess of 300 million. It's really an academic discussion.

Gwar! wrote:People who don't treat women this way are also animals, specifically the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.

I sincerely hope that that comment is meant in jest, and even if it is, it is in bad taste. Just because humans are also another type of animal does not mean we should act like primitive apes! Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity. Ripping a fellow human beings back open 99 times, and then pulverizing that already beaten and bloodied mess that is all that will be left of this fellow human being with hug rocks is just plain evil and primitive.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

Gwar! wrote:People who don't treat women this way are also animals, specifically the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.

I sincerely hope that that comment is meant in jest, and even if it is, it is in bad taste. Just because humans are also another type of animal does not mean we should act like primitive apes! Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity. Ripping a fellow human beings back open 99 times, and then pulverizing that already beaten and bloodied mess that is all that will be left of this fellow human being with hug rocks is just plain evil and primitive.

Perhaps Gwar was just saying that he eats lice out of other folks' hair and throws his feces at enemies and rivals?

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:Liberals and Internationalists tell us Americans to be tolerant of other cultures and religions. They also feel obligated to be outraged when things like this happen (Conservatives would be obligated to bomb them to the Stone Age, but hey, let's just veer away from what people on the right would do).

And yet nothing will happen.

First of all, no, liberals and internationalists don't tell people to be tolerant of all things done in all countries as a matter of course, and not all conservatives believe in bombing everyone back to the stone age. That's just a gross simplification of a very complicated subject.

Gross OVERsimplication does a good job of illustrating the problem with the situation.

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the wife of the President of France and a woman whose political leanings appear left, signed a petition for the release of the woman in question to be executed by the Iranians.

In response, the Iranians called her a prostitute over local media outlets, especially in an editorial form.

A petition will not stop the death of this woman, as the context of a petition is for democratic and capitalist societies with greater transparency than Iran has. Such a petition will do little to sway the hearts of the Iranians in charge of the fate of the stoning.

Israel on the other hand is more than willing to initiate a war if it feels that there is a tipping point that is passed in which Israel must feel that it must defend itself with a pre-emptive attack on the installations of Iran that threaten the Jewish state. Being a state run by a Conservative government, this is very much in line with what I stated earlier.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I sincerely hope that that comment is meant in jest, and even if it is, it is in bad taste. Just because humans are also another type of animal does not mean we should act like primitive apes!

I've never seen a primitive ape use, lets alone construct, a lash. Perhaps you should appreciate the comment for what it was: a critique of the use of metaphors in the course of description.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Human's can be compassionate and caring, and those humans who choose to be prmitive, bloodthirsty apes are a DISGRACE to all of humanity.

So from this I can infer that you have chosen to be compassionate and caring, and are completely above the use of force; even in the course of enforcing moral judgment.

Im guessing the country has less S.T.D in their population...