happy slapping

Greenlizard0 · 4 Jun 2006 at 22:30

KizZ said:
The way the world shoud be: [/url]

Linky contains swearing, and last time I made a thread about this it got closed down! I'd edit it out

jpmonkey69 · 5 Jun 2006 at 08:33

VIRII said:
Perhaps we should bring back the stocks for such people. The real issue is that to do anything that might genuinely deter them would be "against their human rights".

There should be a loophole... if you commit a crime that is against human rights, then you should have no human rights in your punishment.

Similarly, if you are at war with a country that doesn't conform to the Geneva convention, then why conform to it yourself?

Vonhelmet · 5 Jun 2006 at 12:39

jpmonkey69 said:
Similarly, if you are at war with a country that doesn't conform to the Geneva convention, then why conform to it yourself?

Are you a member of the US Government by any chance?

How about no.

loopylou · 5 Jun 2006 at 12:42

tbf, people have always randomly attacked people, kids have always got into fights into the street. The morans are now just providing extra evidence for the police.

Visage · 5 Jun 2006 at 12:43

mattbrown91 said:
people who do it should be tied up and had the crap beaten out of them in public

Coins 'Happy Keyboard Warrioring' term....

Andelusion · 5 Jun 2006 at 12:49

zain said:
Poor quality video but that is absolutely hilarious!

Where the chuff is it? I've looked all over the link posted but can't find it

Visage · 5 Jun 2006 at 13:00

jpmonkey69 said:
There should be a loophole... if you commit a crime that is against human rights, then you should have no human rights in your punishment.

Similarly, if you are at war with a country that doesn't conform to the Geneva convention, then why conform to it yourself?

Because if you dont so it you have no right to expect others to?

Oooh...its all gone a bit SC.......

cleanbluesky · 5 Jun 2006 at 13:10

Visage said:
Because if you dont so it you have no right to expect others to?

Oooh...its all gone a bit SC.......

And who affords 'rights'... you can have 'expectations' (rights are a construct) that other could follow your example, but if they aren't following your example anyway I dont think it would matter if you also chose to ignore the Geneva convention...

Might make the UN write a very stern letter in your general direction though...

squiffy · 5 Jun 2006 at 13:25

jpmonkey69 said:
There should be a loophole... if you commit a crime that is against human rights, then you should have no human rights in your punishment.

Similarly, if you are at war with a country that doesn't conform to the Geneva convention, then why conform to it yourself?

Wow what a reason to throw own ethics and our "belief" we are a civilised country/countries. Strange how the UN was set up to stop any leader going megalomaniac, and recently the US wants to pull out out of the UN, making themselves and their troops do anything without repercussions. A bit like allowing people like Hitler come along again, and for The Hague war crimes tribunals never to happen again. ie if proof comes out that Bush authorised 9/11 to happen, and 100% proof that Iraq war was illegal, authorized tortue on any citizen in the street, they still wouldn't be thrown into the dock...because they're out of the UN, and don't acknowledge human rights is relevant to their policy.

So because another country tortures people that allows us to do the same, all the while attacking that countries "human rights records" ie Iran? if you believe the US has "freedom of speech" you're mistaken, granted you are allowed to voice your opinion, but if that opinion isn't liked there repusscusions. ie The Dixie Chicks, if people were reasonble they would say "I didn't like what Dixie Chicks said" but no, the band were banned from radio station playlists, and people burnt their albums. They also removed from award list ceremony....sounds lesser degree to Nazi germany (you're allowed to say Hitler was gay, but a Gestapo will shoot you later)

Hippacritical don't you think? :rolleyes:

Greenlizard0 · 5 Jun 2006 at 13:33

jpmonkey69 said:
There should be a loophole... if you commit a crime that is against human rights, then you should have no human rights in your punishment.

Hmm...I sort of agree. I believe that you should have the right to use violence to e.g. defend your home if it's being burgled, or e.g. your moms being mugged by some chav. And you shouldn't get punished for it.

Visage · 5 Jun 2006 at 13:37

greenlizard0 said:
Hmm...I sort of agree. I believe that you should have the right to use violence to e.g. defend your home if it's being burgled, or e.g. your moms being mugged by some chav. And you shouldn't get punished for it.

You wont be.

jpmonkey69 · 5 Jun 2006 at 14:44

squiffy said:
Wow what a reason to throw own ethics and our "belief" we are a civilised country/countries. Strange how the UN was set up to stop any leader going megalomaniac, and recently the US wants to pull out out of the UN, making themselves and their troops do anything without repercussions.

Because the US realizes that you cannot have a "fair" war with a country who doesn't follow your rules, that is not fighting you with an army, but autonomous cells, not only that, but a country with so many different factions fighting you, one can give up and you wouldn't even notice...

War isn't meant to be "nice".... War IS hell.

squiffy said:
A bit like allowing people like Hitler come along again, and for The Hague war crimes tribunals never to happen again. ie if proof comes out that Bush authorised 9/11 to happen, and 100% proof that Iraq war was illegal, authorized tortue on any citizen in the street, they still wouldn't be thrown into the dock...because they're out of the UN, and don't acknowledge human rights is relevant to their policy.

Not really like letting Hitler come along though, because he was a facist dictator, whereas GWB is not. I would find it very difficult to believe someone as (obviously) patriotic as GWB would let something like this happen "at his authorisation".

IMO, there were no WMDs in Iraq and it was WAS a lie, however the war had a very real reason apart from oil... it was to oust an unstable, fanatical lunatic from power who was funded and put in power by us in the first place.

Is it really fair to let someone like SH repress and/or butcher anyone he feels like at will? on the basis of religion or opinion?!... I'm not sure if you saw the speech where he first came into power, read a list of political opponents, and had secret police remove them from the room.

squiffy said:
So because another country tortures people that allows us to do the same, all the while attacking that countries "human rights records" ie Iran?

As above, it isn't fair on your troops to send them into a disadvantaged battle situation.

squiffy said:
if you believe the US has "freedom of speech" you're mistaken, granted you are allowed to voice your opinion, but if that opinion isn't liked there repusscusions. -snip-

I never said anything to make you assume I did, but if you want to play it like that..... If you can't see the difference between the "freedom of speech" in Afganistan during the Taliban occupation, and the "freedom of speech" in the USA currently, then you're fairly short sighted. I can't remember the last time I heard of the US torturing/killing a citizen just because of what he says.

squiffy said:
Hippacritical don't you think?

No.