Thread title....women beheaded in london
You dont want it to go off topic you say
He was a pedo too.
You dont want it to go off topic you say
Woman beheaded in London
- Thread starter friddela
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
So you saying since it was 800 years ago and it was legal, it was okay.
There are some countries in the world that it's still kinda legal, so I guess it's okay.
Of coarse it was, it was a different time with different social acceptances.
Whether or not something is ok now, has very little influence on what was accepted centuries ago.
What does renaming the jpg do?
meant to break the link to the correct path so it wont show.....
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
What does renaming the jpg do?
I think he's removed his "i like em small" "pedo" doll.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
You still missing the point. Today we have different standards of moral behaviour, beliefs and ideas of what is socially okay and as such we execute these "rules" of what we can do and what we can't do in every day life.
But it's okay to be part of a religion that was founded by a man who if we had to put him on a scale, it would be the far worst of the everything bad.
Let me ask you today, what if there was no religion but tomorrow, Muhammad shows up and starts preaching Islam, would it be okay for millions of people to fellow a man with such a bad history?
Last edited:
It doesn't matter... the contradiction is still there
and frankly treatment of disabled people differs in far more varied contexts
the other poster is correct IMO - people are not the same, in order to treat people fairly you do have to make compromises
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
Exactly making it impossible to judge things morally or socially from a different moral and social time.
Depends if you believe that history was bad or not, I guess you do and others don't.
Is this still on topic for you?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
There's no contradiction, one in "medical" context one in "behave towards" context. If you want to believe there is go ahead.
How you behave towards (treat) them should remain the same, aka fairly and equally. Disabled people will tell you the same thing, but what do they know. The treatment (medical) offered will differ.
If that is your position you can agree together, doesn't make either one of you correct just something we happen to disagree with. Offering different services is not making compromises, in the context of a able bodied/disabled person.
Anyhow i'm done with this, talked enough about it with one person so not really interested in continuing it with you.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
Exactly making it impossible to judge things morally or socially from a different moral and social time.
Depends if you believe that history was bad or not, I guess you do and others don't.
Is this still on topic for you?
Impossible? So we shouldn't judge Hitler or Stalin since that was from a different time where moral and social orders was very different to today standards.
It's kinda funny you saying this since our crime system has to judge people for crimes they did many years ago for example historical sexual abuse, where at the time, I guess it was okay for little Tim to sit on Jimmys knee but today would raise a few eyebrows.
I'm sorry, but you judge people for who they are and what they did and not what time period they are from.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
Are you special or something? (well you do play with pedo dolls)
What he was doing wasn't socially or morally accepted in that time period and nor is it today.
Rest assured Octonaught that in 2014 scientists have treatment for Vit D deficiency and we can cure it. It is therefore no longer a selection pressure and will not be a factor in human evolution.
(The treatment is Vitamin D and eggs, oily fish, margarine, breakfast cereal, powered milk - not necessarily all at the same time).
When we look for evidence to support our views peer reviewed scientific journals lead the way rather than internet sites.
Looking for a correlation between race and ethnicity and illness is problematic, see sections here on 'Race' 'Ethnicity' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44246/#A1150
Our genetic make-up and the genes we have do increase the likelihood of us developing a disease if those genes are active.
But it is very complex, we can't conclude it is just one factor e.g. skin colour at play. For instance the risk factors of developing a mental illness (excluding reading this thread) may be:
Individual
Genetic vulnerability
Gender
Low birth weight
Neuropsychological deficits
Language disabilities
Chronic physical illness
Below-average intelligence
Child abuse or neglect
Family
Severe marital discord
Social disadvantage
Overcrowding or large family size
Paternal criminality
Maternal mental disorder
Admission to foster care
Community or social
Violence
Poverty
Community disorganization
Inadequate schools
Racism and discrimination
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
What he was doing, who?
Regarding Hilter, many of the German people and the Nazis it was very well normal and accepted, you should catch up on your history and watch some documentaries where the old veterans and people from that time give interviews and show insight to what was normal and okay for them. History channel and Netflix has some great shows on the Nazi Concentration Camps and the people who worked at them.
Unfortunately I had to report two of your posts since in my view they are danger close libel.
And thus its not practical to judge historical figures on modern standards. Your comment on glitter and Saville are only relevant because it highlights the fact that they were tried using the law as it stood at the point of crime, not now. If you were to apply todays moral standpoint and law retrospectively then untold historical figures would fall foul.
From the 12th century the catholic church permitted girls from 12 and boys from 14 to marry without consent of parents, earlier with consent. You simply cant judge people from one time with the laws of another, especially when 1300 years have passed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
But we do apply modern day standards to historical figures. Whenever we learn something new about that person or people, a new tag is added to them.
You hear it from researchers in documentaries all the time.
No we don't. A comparison with modern laws, social structure or hierarchy etc is provided to give the auidence a relevant comprehension of the way people lived, not to judge them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,647
I've read this entire thread over the past few days and you've articulated many well-reasoned arguments throughout, often under intense provocation from the bigots, which leaves me baffled as to why you're not grasping such a simple concept.
A rather simplistic example would be that of disabled parking spaces: always located in areas most advantageous to those with a disability. This is an inconvenience/compromise/allowance/adjustment/concession (call it what you will) made by the able bodied, but it ensures the minority group in question is afforded their right to fully participate in community life on a fair and equitable basis. You can extend this analogy to any walk of life.
Another crude example would be that of a child with Autism receiving a Statement of Educational Needs (which can have significant financial implications) enabling them to participate in mainstream education.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,647
Oh dear.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick and mistook it for meaning something else.
Happy to hold my hands up, and accept mistake.
Apologies to xordium for wasting your time !