This may be splitting hairs at this point, but what really is the difference between burning somebody to death and stoning them to death? Is it just a personal preference, or are you taking something else into account, because I consider them both barbaric forms of punishment.
Barbaric forms of punishment are required for crimes which are of barbaric nature. Simple jail terms, with access to 5-star food and video-game consoles will only encourage these sort of crimes. These people should be made to suffer. Jail: A five-star retreat in the mind of bryant.coleman. Way to stay grounded in reality. Really, stoning and burning to death is barbaric in the eyes of the audience. These are intended to make the audience fear. That's true, but there are some things we generally accept as universal. Even though we have the death penalty, the penalty is agreed to be death, not intentional agony. That's why death penalties that inflict pain aren't tolerated. Also, every major religion uses the threat of eternal punishment in hell to scare people into behaving. Fear has never worked, whether it was temporary pain or when it was accepted to be eternal torment. |
|
|
|
I get the feeling that technologies like the internet have just shed light on the way people were already acting, as opposed to them influencing people to act trashier. What media technologies may have done though is influence people to do the same trashy things instead of their own different ones (e.g. little girls twerking).
Without the technology to make everything so easily transmittable, I don't think twerking becomes a thing like it has. Technology has played a role in the adoption of behaviors we see others do. Mass and social media creates phenomena now as opposed to juts shedding light on what was already happening. |
|
|
|
This looks like a nice little scam they're running. Convince people to you're a country and then accept donations from people gullible enough to literally buy into it. Their public bank account ( https://www.fio.cz/scgi-bin/hermes/dz-transparent.cgi?ID_ucet=2800402875) currently shows that people have given them 36,598.31 Czech Koruny ($1400) in a few days. Not bad! So much for crypto though I guess. |
|
|
|
This, they are saying "we are muslims" but they do not know what is the meaning of "Islam".
You can't run away by saying something like this. The ISIS has support only from Muslims, and their plan is the complete extermination of all non-Muslims. And contrary to the popular myths, there is a lot of support for ISIS among the Muslims. Moreover, they are supported by Saudi Arabia, which is the decision taker for the Sunni Muslims around the world. You can't keep your anecdotes straight. First you say Israel is helping ISIS, then you say only Muslims support ISIS. You might run into less problems with sketchy facts if you post a source to back up your claims once in awhile. The Israel - Palestine conflict has nothing to do with this. Israel is actually supporting the ISIS. A few months ago, they bombed the Syrian army positions, in order to help the ISIS in gaining territory. Another NATO member, Turkey is supporting the ISIS by issuing passports to its fighters, so that they could travel to Iraq and Syria to join the fighting.
|
|
|
|
If this can be reported why can't it be stopped?
Stupid idiots have nothing better to do then torcher children.
That poor baby.
Very good questions. It seems that our politicians know just how to talk a lot, without taking any real actions to stop this tragedy and save this people, women and children. ISIS is pure evil and I really hope that soon or later someone will stop them. If I can say my personal opinion, regarding this fact: If any government really want to stop their action or better all the isis members they can do it. The real reason is they do not want to stop ISIS. Powers like USA, Russia or China can do this at any moment but it seems there is no real political will to do anything.
Shame on them.
Have you seen what is happening in Yemen, why saudi arabian government didn't take real action to stop the ISIS? Probably because it doesn't want. Why USA don't send military/soldiers to fight against ISIS? This is overly simplistic. It's not a case of want, it's a case of practicality and public tolerance. Nobody wants ISIS to kill people, but we're already bombing them and the public simply will not tolerate another troop deployment to fight an ineffective guerrilla war. Every US soldier has a family, and that family and the US public in general does not want their people dropped into a desert to fight a group that has very little to do with us. It's the same for Russia and China as well, whom ISIS cannot threaten. It's different for Middle Eastern countries, where ISIS gains pose direct problems to local governments. |
|
|
|
This may be splitting hairs at this point, but what really is the difference between burning somebody to death and stoning them to death? Is it just a personal preference, or are you taking something else into account, because I consider them both barbaric forms of punishment.
Barbaric forms of punishment are required for crimes which are of barbaric nature. Simple jail terms, with access to 5-star food and video-game consoles will only encourage these sort of crimes. These people should be made to suffer. Jail: A five-star retreat in the mind of bryant.coleman. Way to stay grounded in reality. |
|
|
|
|
I'll might vote for him in the primary in my state, but definitely will not in the general election. Although he severely hurt his chances to get my vote in the primary by pandering to anti-vaxers. I might just cast a protest vote against any other democrat than Hillary instead.
|
|
|
|
Butterfly Labs was, well...scammers. The emails would form evidence of what they said/promised and what people expected and paid for, and then the long train of complaints by the consumers and the ducking and dodging by BFL. Relative to bringing charges against BFL (civil or criminal I don't know.) I'm leaning in favor of that's the way the system is supposed to work. In other words, this is not NSA massive spying. Who agrees or disagrees with this point of view? I agree with you, this is the way the system is supposed to work. However, this is not a government action, it is civil. The CV in the case number (14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO) means civil action and if you look it up, you see the case was brought by Kyle Alexander, et al., v. BF Labs Inc. |
|
|
|
Oh really...that's new for me. This should be there for all the countries and should also include Army as well. What do you say people? It is not required for police. Any insurance company may offer to sell you a surety bond for an individual officer, however why any cop would buy one is beyond me because they are agents of the local government, and are indemnified by governmental immunity. If they act poorly, the government (i.e. taxpayers) are on the hook for paying for lawsuits. |
|
|
|
You led yourself off a cliff of logic.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
The insurance I proposed has nothing to do with what cops feel and how they react due to whether or not they feel insured everything to do not forcing tax payers to pay a financial penalty when cops brutalize someone. Cops would be paying for that expense themselves now since the insurance premiums for police brutality would be paid exclusively by cops. Your last response has me wondering if we are even discussing the same thing. Perhaps we haven't been and I didn't realize it. |
|
|
|
|
Beliathon's response isn't really off topic. I see his point as being that so much of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is tied up in religious aspects, and when you look at it through that lens, it's completely on topic. It would be easier to solve the land dispute if people didn't believe in an afterlife, because they might be more ready to accept that you get one life and we have to learn to live together, because there are no second chances to live better next time.
|
|
|
|
twister found the punishment. Would it be strong enough to carry theur body upside down?  I dint get you. Burning them alive or stoning them to death is a decent punishment but I am not aware of the law in that girl's country. The criminals usually don't get a death sentence for rape. For raping, in countries which claim to follow Islamic rules, they will get a death sentence, obviously, stone to death. I don't like burning them nor a living being alive though. This may be splitting hairs at this point, but what really is the difference between burning somebody to death and stoning them to death? Is it just a personal preference, or are you taking something else into account, because I consider them both barbaric forms of punishment. |
|
|
|
and yes, even people who dont like me are my friends  if they need help, ill help. no matter who you are, what you have done to me, what you will do to me. we are still friends This is ultimately all that matters. It couldn't matter less to me how you behave within the rules of your own religion. It only matters to me how you treat other people. To me, you can't be a good person in a strictly religious context. You can only be a good person through your actions. Where I'm headed with that is that if I was Muslim I'd consider it a severe insult for extremists to have hijacked what are essentially from that world view, sacred words.
I see your point here and I agree with it. |
|
|
|
Actually, the phrase "allah akbar" has already been hijacked to refer to gibberish spouted by a maniac in a pseudo-Islamic killing frenzy.
That's over and done. That's what the phrase means.
Even I think you are letting your own bias and hatred color things too much now. You take something you have a one-dimensional view of and declare it to be a universal truth? Get over yourself a bit. Universal truth? I am only referring to the way the phrase is being perverted which is well understood. ...and declaring it to be the exclusive meaning of the phrase. Does that seem fair to you? (At least, it seems to me you are declaring that to be the case with the conclusion "That's over and done. That's what the phrase means.") Okay, let me restrict the scope of my comment to something like "In america", or "In non-muslim countries" or such. Obviously if a Muslim heard it he knows what the words mean. But when a US citizen hears it in the context of foreign words in English, it pretty much refers to something a foaming at the mouth mad dog Islamic Terrorist HAS been reported to have said in the midst of heinous unprovoked acts. I think this is closer to fair. But I am an American, and when I hear the phrase, I understand it's association with violent acts (especially to Americans who mostly hear it exclusively in that context), but I also know this to be a fringe use of the phrase. |
|
|
|
Looks like a moving company or airline to me. When my mind see's an arrow it thinks of transportation. I would not have picked this logo myself.
 Haha! I was just coming back to post the FedEx logo. The arrow in the H reminds of that completely. |
|
|
|
I think it's incredibly unimaginative. Also, the arrow is pointing to the right, which reminds me that she has a lot more in common with Dick Cheney than she or her base would ever care to admit. To people who support her, Dick Cheney was the devil, yet they'll support her even though she shared so many policies with Dick over the years: she voted for war in Iraq, has supported American-led interventions in Libya and Syria, is pro-PATRIOT ACT, and is on the record as supporting "traditional" marriage.  She also said Edward Snowden was on the side of terrorists when he leaked the existence of the NSA programs, something Dick Cheney also frequently argues. |
|
|
|
......Here's a tip: it's not my job to go through your fairy tales to find justifications for your arguments. You're the one trying to prove your religion is so wonderful and perfect. And you're doing a terrible job.
It's doubtful any Westerner non-Islamic is going to go through the social code of the Koran and conclude it's "Wonderful and Perfect." That's something a True Believer would say. It looks to me like a bunch of basic rules conceived of in medieval times to force the illiterate and ignorant masses to obey. I'm good with that. That means more Bacon for Me! You and I agree on this. It's still fun to ask True Believers to justify their stories, especially when they act so hostile about how great their religion is. |
|
|
|
I'm sick of people thinking religion is even an important question.
It doesn't fucking matter what religion someone is. It doesn't even matter whether they find justification for what they're doing in religion. What matters is what they do.
I would count it as real progress in the world if we didn't even know how many muslims, how many christians, how many atheists, etc, because everybody understood that the question was too darn trivial to even bother asking.
I really agree with this sentiment, but for as trivial we may find religion, we have to acknowledge the reality that religion is a guiding force in the daily lives of much of this world's inhabitants. In essence, you have identified the chief problem: some of us saying only actions matter, some of us saying that actions can have religious justifications. In the minds of the people who are guided by religion, you can't convince them their actions are wrong where they believe they have a religious justification to act a certain way. |
|
|
|
Response to Jayasabi:
'Aisha and prophet's Nikkah was done when 'Aisha was 7-9 years old and they started living together(consummation) when 'Aisha reached maturity, i.e., 9-12 years old. 'Aisha was mentally and physically matured. 'Aisha was very happy with marriage. If both wife and husband is okay, what's the problem? Also how can a marriage be compared to rape? Both are different.
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:
Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad:
(on the authority of his father) 'Aisha said: 'Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her.' 'Aisha added, 'None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could.'
The problem I have with this is 1) it comes from a religious text which is very unreliable by nature of it being a religious text, and 2) it's not possible for me to conceptualize a 9-12 year-old being "mentally and physically matured" because we live in a time when 9-12 year-olds are without question not mentally and physically matured at that age. Perhaps under a very different value system and many hundreds of years ago, it was socially acceptable to marry and boff children because no one had the sense to know better, but the fact remains that we now know better, and it's not justifiable now. In our society, we don't consider marriage and rape exclusionary. Rape is capable of taking place inside of a marriage. It has to do with consent. You can be married and not provide consent. And one aspect of consent, is the ability to give consent. And as a society, we do not consider children to be able to give consent because even when they are saying yes, they are too young to understand the emotional and psychological things they are saying yes to. These are important things in our world today that your religious books do not even consider because the concepts did not exist at the time. You are too dumb to research and just making a perception based on falsehood portrayed by western media. If you'll go through Islamic social code you'll find it a perfection and miracle itself. None of which you mentioned? How convenient! It's sad for you that instead of writing anything thoughtful you resort to attacks. It shows the strength of your argument. Here's a tip: it's not my job to go through your fairy tales to find justifications for your arguments. You're the one trying to prove your religion is so wonderful and perfect. And you're doing a terrible job. |
|
|
|
Actually, the phrase "allah akbar" has already been hijacked to refer to gibberish spouted by a maniac in a pseudo-Islamic killing frenzy.
That's over and done. That's what the phrase means.
Even I think you are letting your own bias and hatred color things too much now. You take something you have a one-dimensional view of and declare it to be a universal truth? Get over yourself a bit. Universal truth? I am only referring to the way the phrase is being perverted which is well understood. ...and declaring it to be the exclusive meaning of the phrase. Does that seem fair to you? (At least, it seems to me you are declaring that to be the case with the conclusion "That's over and done. That's what the phrase means.") |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
