Still waiting for a reply to this from twoblacklines...or is it that hes just talking a steaming pile of dog crap as usual and has no proof of his stupid claim???....i do wonder.
Sudanese woman whipped in the street for wearing trousers
- Thread starter vicisthebest
- Start date
Still waiting for a reply to this from twoblacklines...or is it that hes just talking a steaming pile of dog crap as usual and has no proof of his stupid claim???....i do wonder.
No, you see, us imposing our law on them quite emphatically would be different to them imposing their law on us, because theirs is inferior to ours and gives people less freedoms and more restrictions with no justification. They are not equally valid, just two different methods of governance, one is quite clearly more advanced and more humanitarian, by virtue of the fact that ours evolved from one which more closely resembled theirs. Also by virtue of the fact that ours doesn't involve public humiliation and whippings. Are you claiming you're unable to see that whipping someone in public is wrong? Why do you give all moral authority to the state? States are not magical wondrous unquestionable infallible god-given entities - they are collections of humans, with moral codes drawn from those. You have just as much right to talk on it as the state does, they are not to be blindly kowtowed to.
This issue of the use of words like "us", "them", "theirs" and "ours" in the context of the "it's none of our business" brigade; why is nationalism so important to you guys? Why must every single thing stop at the national level? "They" are just as human as "we", are they not? Why should they suffer? Again, "sovereignty" is not some god-given absolute, it's a man-made construct which has served, and does continue to serve, a valid purpose, but why treat it as absolute? We over here, as humans who happen, by mere circumstance of where we happened to be born, to have had access to greater freedoms and less inhumane strictness, have gradually (as mentioned by the guy pointing out that homosexual sex used to be illegal) moved towards greater freedom and fairer treatment for all. Can we not conclude that this is a morally superior position?
Sure, there is no absolute wrong/right, and I know this isn't a simple issue, and I'm not suggesting for a second that the west needs to be a Team America-esque World Police; I just don't get why quite a lot of people are happy to ignore the issue and hide behind such flimsy excuses for doing nothing and not caring as "it's their problem not ours"; we're all in the same boat. We're all humans. We're all (possibly) self aware. We all know that whipping someone in the street for wearing material stitched in a different way to what the state mandates is plain dumb and would campaign against such measures were they introduced over here.
IDK, rant over. Being human is far more important than the artificial borders and divisions of "nations", to me, is all.
And if you bothered to read your link then you would realise that its to do with civil cases
...nothing criminal about it.Also ill point out that in the link above, the Sharia courts are used as an arbitration tool/tribunals and they are not binding ie over ruling the british law itself.
So again i ask you where does Sharia law is enforced in the UK ie overrules the British law that resides in this country.
And if you bothered to read your link then you would realise that its to do with civil cases
Also ill point out that in the link above, the Sharia courts are used as an arbitration tool/tribunals and they are not binding ie over ruling the british law itself.
So again i ask you where does Sharia law is enforced in the UK ie overrules the British law that resides in this country.
Why's it needed?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 14,341
- Location
- Huddersfield
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
My view is based on the rather easy to grasp concept that beating people up and causing them physical pain is a bad thing.
Why is beating women for wearing trousers acceptable and something thats simply a matter of opinion, yet genocide is not? Where is the line?
Either we can judge what we consider to be barabaric practice or we cant?
[TW]Fox;18024371 said:
Again, you have not got your head around the even easier concept that you and I might as well be judging people from another planet.
Have you ever listened to the Ricky Gervais show? The one where Ricky tries to explain to Karl that even if a lion could speak, we couldnt understand it, as it would have no frame of reference, no similar experiences and no understanding of us at all.
You might as well be talking about how wrong it is that Bonobo monkeys eat other monkeys, their frame of reference is that far removed from our own.
This isnt like going outside and finding your neighbour sticking his wifes head on a stick in his front garden, this is a country who still believes a great big man in the sky rules their lives.
Nice wholly irrelevant, completely invalid, demonstrably farcical point. If a lion could talk it would speak on things such as survival, his place in the pecking order of his pride, the struggle of the hunt for food, how damn hot the savannah gets and how nice the shade feels. Things such as this. Things we can all relate to; we're all animals with the same base instincts of survival.
We reached "our" humanitarian enlightenment (and are quite possibly still going through it, but either way; we started along the road) why, necessarily, must we not try to help "them" reach theirs?
Why must we respect that which is blatantly barbaric?
But we are not. They are the same species as us. They are not monkeys - they are people. They are people videoing the beating of a woman beside a car using a mobile phone. They are not monkeys in a jungle.
Are you saying you'd rather we just let Hitler get on with his genocide? After all, different frame of reference, right? Who are we to tell him that gassing people he doesnt like is wrong?
It's the same concept.
btw, a great deal of people in this country also beleive the great big man in the sky rules their lives.
[TW]Fox;18024716 said:
We were letting him get on with genocide.
What, you mean you actually think Britain entered into conflict with Germany because of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews?
HAHAHA.... wait no, the amount of that I will need to type will just break my keyboard.
You went to university didnt you?
Be dissmissing the analogy you only prove it, you have NO concept of how they can view their actions as acceptable, you couldnt even begin to reason with them or grasp why they think its acceptable.
Last edited:
Yea, I totally said that 
Point is that stuff like this has in the past been deemed unacceptable and sould be in the future. You cannot justify beating women for not doing what you command them to. It is disgusting, and I don't particularly care who it is thats doing it because this changes nothing.
I am not saying we should blow them all up, I'm saying we are quite entitled to strongly disaaprove of it without people like yourself considernig it acceptable.
Point is that stuff like this has in the past been deemed unacceptable and sould be in the future. You cannot justify beating women for not doing what you command them to. It is disgusting, and I don't particularly care who it is thats doing it because this changes nothing.
I am not saying we should blow them all up, I'm saying we are quite entitled to strongly disaaprove of it without people like yourself considernig it acceptable.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'm sure Sudan has got many films of us civilised British people doing stuff that horrifies them.
[TW]Fox;18024789 said:Yea, I totally said that
Point is that stuff like this has in the past been deemed unacceptable and sould be in the future. You cannot justify beating women for not doing what you command them to. It is disgusting, and I don't particularly care who it is thats doing it because this changes nothing.
I am not saying we should blow them all up, I'm saying we are quite entitled to strongly disaaprove of it without people like yourself considernig it acceptable.
Britain joined conflict with Nazi Germany through fear of German expansionism and Military growth.
Through fear of being taken over, not through anything as grand as stopping the holocaust.
I'd like to see how long that attitude would last if you actually lived in sudan... that particular stance would not survive unscathed for long. I think you forget the benefit of living in a country where you have the freedom do more or less do and say as you please, and as such your statement is a conceit, if technically correct.