Author | Thread |
|
11/06/2006 06:11:31 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by hokie:
It's 2007 and I feel like we are going back to the 1950's. All these people wearing flags on their lapels and quoting scripture. I mean...turn it around. Have us wearing Islamic moons on our lapels and dropping to our knees 5 times a day. This apocalypse is between the intolerants.
|
Other than the different religions, I don't see a great deal of difference between the extremist muslims and the fundamental christians. |
Taken as a group, fundamental Christians, of which I am one, neither condone nor participate in, nor plan, plot, or conspire to commit acts of violence under the guise of religion.
Taken as a group, extremist Muslims do condone, participate in, plan, plot, or conspire to commit acts of violence under the guise of religion.
It might be said that extremist fundamental Christians do, as well. Though frankly, the number of extremist fundamental Christians is, at present, several orders of magnitude fewer than the number of extremist Muslims. |
|
|
11/06/2006 06:23:38 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by bigalpha: Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by bigalpha: Does it matter if the judge was related to some of the victims? |
It matters if you believe that Saddam had the right to a fair trial. |
No, I don't. What goes around, comes around. |
Isn't the constitutional right to a fair trial a part of the values of democracy and freedom that the US is supposed to be spreading across the region?
Yes, it's right there; the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do you not believe in the values of your own country's constitution? |
|
|
11/06/2006 06:33:29 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by bigalpha: Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by bigalpha: Does it matter if the judge was related to some of the victims? |
It matters if you believe that Saddam had the right to a fair trial. |
No, I don't. What goes around, comes around. |
Isn't the constitutional right to a fair trial a part of the values of democracy and freedom that the US is supposed to be spreading across the region?
Yes, it's right there; the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do you not believe in the values of your own country's constitution? |
That would be a valid argument if the trial were heldin the US.
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:34:47 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by RonB: Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by hokie:
It's 2007 and I feel like we are going back to the 1950's. All these people wearing flags on their lapels and quoting scripture. I mean...turn it around. Have us wearing Islamic moons on our lapels and dropping to our knees 5 times a day. This apocalypse is between the intolerants.
|
Other than the different religions, I don't see a great deal of difference between the extremist muslims and the fundamental christians. |
Taken as a group, fundamental Christians, of which I am one, neither condone nor participate in, nor plan, plot, or conspire to commit acts of violence under the guise of religion.
Taken as a group, extremist Muslims do condone, participate in, plan, plot, or conspire to commit acts of violence under the guise of religion.
It might be said that extremist fundamental Christians do, as well. Though frankly, the number of extremist fundamental Christians is, at present, several orders of magnitude fewer than the number of extremist Muslims. |
I guess it's a matter of how you define fundamental. I suppose that I should have said extremist Christian.
I would say that killing doctors with sniper rifles in the name of God or forcing your followers to drink cyanide laced Kool-Aid en mass after shooting a congressman qualify as acts of violence. There is not really any might about it.
My point is that extremism in any religion that leads to violence is unacceptable. The muslims do not have a monopoly on this.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 18:37:56. |
|
|
11/06/2006 06:41:12 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by RonB: Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by hokie:
It's 2007 and I feel like we are going back to the 1950's. All these people wearing flags on their lapels and quoting scripture. I mean...turn it around. Have us wearing Islamic moons on our lapels and dropping to our knees 5 times a day. This apocalypse is between the intolerants.
|
Other than the different religions, I don't see a great deal of difference between the extremist muslims and the fundamental christians. |
Taken as a group, fundamental Christians, of which I am one, neither condone nor participate in, nor plan, plot, or conspire to commit acts of violence under the guise of religion.
Taken as a group, extremist Muslims do condone, participate in, plan, plot, or conspire to commit acts of violence under the guise of religion.
It might be said that extremist fundamental Christians do, as well. Though frankly, the number of extremist fundamental Christians is, at present, several orders of magnitude fewer than the number of extremist Muslims. |
I guess it's a matter of how you define fundamental. I suppose that I should have said extremist Christian.
I would say that killing doctors with sniper rifles in the name of God or forcing your followers to drink cyanide laced Kool-Aid en mass qualifies as an act of violence. |
The numbers of extremist Muslims has to outnumber the numbers of extremist Christians because extremist Christians have the bomb and all the weapons and aren't afraid to use it!
Seriously, I am not a George Bush hater. I voted for the shmuck. But if I were a Muslim in the Middle-East with the same level of education and basic intelligence that I have today..I would be a little nervous about the Christian with the big red button.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 18:43:15. |
|
|
11/06/2006 08:52:34 PM · #81 |
Well, you wouldn't have to worry about the Christian with the big red button if you would quit killing and making threats to annihilate all non-Muslims the world over. THE WORLD OVER !!!
|
|
|
11/07/2006 12:26:41 AM · #82 |
[quote=kdsprog] I share all of your views except for the death penalty. Is this inconsistent? Not to my way of thinking. My objection to the death penalty in any form has nothing to do with the sanctity of life thing. My objection is purely that death is NOT a form of punishment, it is a form of release. If my child were to be raped, I would not want the person killed. I would want him put in prison where he himself will be raped nightly for the rest of his days! That is punishment. Prison is a form of torture. That is where the true criminals belong. Not dead, where they have no pain. For a man who ruled a country and had every luxury, a stark prison cell of the 8x10 dimension with no end in sight would be much more of a punishment.(quote]
I am in agreement that death is not punishment. It might give a sorted sense of satisfaction to those who suffered under his rule, but I don't think an eye for an eye is the answer. Revenge? Getting what he deserves? Who knows. Just looking at him sickens me. I rather think a life in a cell would serve him a better plate of "come uppance" than a quick jerk of the rope.
|
|
|
11/07/2006 01:19:47 AM · #83 |
I've been for capital punishment in the past but currently I'm against it. Fact is not everyone gets a fair trial because not everyone can afford it. Also the cost to put someone on death row exceeds the cost to house that same person in a jail for life. Plus as Judy says, it's not much of a deterrent and only really serves to help bring some sense of closure to the victim's family.
In regards to Saddam I think he should be put to death. Not because it's the proper punishment but for the reason mentioned earlier and that is he would be too dangerous to keep alive. I much rather he be a martyr than someone who can still provide great influence in the world even in his cell. There's a reason "bloody" and "coup" always go together.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 01:20:45. |
|
|
11/07/2006 01:34:42 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by David Ey: Well, you wouldn't have to worry about the Christian with the big red button if you would quit killing and making threats to annihilate all non-Muslims the world over. THE WORLD OVER !!! |
Who? me? killing? making threats? |
|
|
11/07/2006 01:45:47 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by David Ey: Well, you wouldn't have to worry about the Christian with the big red button if you would quit killing and making threats to annihilate all non-Muslims the world over. THE WORLD OVER !!! |
You are not going to deter the Extremist Muslims in the mainstream Mid-East with a threat of nuclear annihilation. They just do not think like cold war Russia or even North Korea. We can only change the extremists by changing the region surrounding the Mid-East. We must work on the countries on the peripheral that are still unstable but open to reason and change. Pakistan and India would be better places to control things. Hell, North Korea got a good bit of their nuclear technology from Pakistan.
Don't forget Turkey. They are under huge pressure from the Kurdish influx on their borders and this could cause instability. What about Saudi Arabia? The majority of the 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
We (meaning a lot of the United States) keep thinking the Crazy Muslim = Iraq, Iran and Afganistan when the muslim world is much larger.
Listed below is the top 46 countries whose population is majority muslim and represent over 1 Billion people.
1 Afaganistan 18M 99%
2 Albania 2.3M 75%
3 Algeria 22M 98%
4 Bahrain .220M 99%
5 Bangladesh 100M 85%
6 Cameroon 6.2M 55%
7 Central African Republic 2M 55%
8 Chad 4M 85%
9 Dahomey 3M 60%
10 Egypt 51M 93%
11 Ethiopia 27M 65%
12 Gambia .4M 85%
13 Guinea 4.3M 95%
14 Guinea-Bissau .81M 70%
15 Indonesia 161M 95%
16 Iran 48M 98%
17 Iraq 14.5M 95%
18 Ivory Coast 5M 55%
19 Jordan 3M 95%
20 Kuwait 1M 98%
21 Lebanon 3M 57%
22 Libya 3M 100%
23 Malaysia 14.5M 52%
24 Maldive Islands 12M 100%
25 Mali 6M 90%
26 Mauritania 2M 100%
27 Morocco 24M 99%
28 Niger 4.5M 91%
29 Nigeria 100M 75%
30 Oman .75M 100%
31 Pakistan 90M 97%
32 Qatar .18M 100%
33 Saudi Arabia 10.5M 100
34 Senegal 7M 95%
35 Sierra Leone 3M 65%
36 Somalia 5M 100%
37 South Yemen 1.5M 95%
38 Sudan 22M 85%
39 Syria 11M 87%
40 Tanzania 15M 65%
41 Togo 2.1M 55%
42 Tunisia 7M 95%
43 Turkey 66M 99%
44 U.A.E .32M 100%
45 Upper Volta 6M 56%
46 North Yemen 6M 99%
Her is a list of countries where Muslims are a minority but significant percentage
Angola 1.5M 25%
Argentina .5M 2%
Ausralia .13M 1%
Bhutan .05M 5%
Botswana .03M 5%
Brazil .21M .2%
Bulgaria 1.3M 14%
Burma 3M 10%
Burundi .7M 20%
Cambodia .07M 1%
Canada .1M .5%
China 100M 11%
Congo .15M 15%
Cyprus .21M 33%
Equatorial Guinea .07M 25%
Fiji .06M 11%
France 2M 3.80%
Germany 1.5M 2.40%
Ghana 3M 30%
Gibraltar .003M 10%
Greece .27M 3%
Hong Kong .004M 1%
Guyana .01M 15%
India 100M 12%
Italy .55M 1%
Japan .01M 1.00%
Kenya 4M 29.50%
Liberia .5M 30%
Lesotho .12M 10%
Malagasy Republic 1.4M 20%
Malawi 1.7M 35%
Malta .045M 14%
Mauritius .14M 19.50%
Mozambique 2.2M 29%
Nambia .034M 5%
Nepal .5M 4%
Netherlands .2M 1.50%
Panama .05M 4%
Phillipines 5M 12%
Portuguese Timor .012M 20%
Reunion .09M 20%
Rumania .2M 20%
Zimbabwe 1M 15%
South Africa .5M 2%
Sri Lanka 1.2M 9%
Surinam .1M 25%
Swaziland .046M 10%
Thailand 6M 14%
Trinidad & Tobago .127M 12%
Uganda 4M 36%
U.K 1.5M 2.70%
U.S.S.R (Russia) 60M 20%
U.S.A 3.2M 1.50%
Yugoslavia 5M 20%
Zaire 2.4M 10%
Zambia .7M 15%
Are we gonna wag nuclear weapons at a 1/3rd of the Worlds population or over 2 billion people? Because if we do Armegeddon is here my friends.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 01:48:55. |
|
|
11/07/2006 01:48:53 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by yanko: There's a reason "bloody" and "coup" always go together. |
Except in Ghana, Libya, Mauritania, and maybe a few other places.
"We must always remember to never use words like 'always' and 'never.'" |
|
|
11/07/2006 01:50:01 AM · #87 |
Why aren't the Buddhists and Hindus making headlines?
|
|
|
11/07/2006 01:51:14 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by crayon: Why aren't the Buddhists and Hindus making headlines? |
Because they dont have oil :-/ |
|
|
11/07/2006 03:30:50 AM · #89 |
Killing Saddam is not a solution. It will solve nothing.
(These comments are not meant to be inflamatory, please do not take them as such.) |
|
|
11/07/2006 05:31:38 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by Flash: Why would you support the death of an innocent unborn and oppose the death of a convicted murderer? If you support capitol punishment then it seems to me that you should accept other forms of "choice" death including the right to self defense and even euthenasia.
To me, either you oppose all forms of death (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, capitol punishment, euthenasia, right to self defense, war, etc) or you support them. Choosing some and not others is akin to hypocracy in my opinion. |
The "hypocrisy" that you identify only exists if you consider an unborn foetus to have the same right to life as a living person. I do not think that a foetus has a complete right to life from the point of conception, and so have no qualms about supporting the competing rights of the mother (or community at large in the case of stem cell research) until the foetus has developed sufficiently to benefit from those rights.
When (IMO) the right to life has been established, then I support it with equal vigour, whether that of a newborn child or a convicted mass murderer or military dictator.
The position is not hypocritical, but you can (as you do) make it sound as if it is hypocritical by simplifying the position so as to eliminate the justification.
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:42:27 AM · #91 |
So something that requires continued life in order to develop has no right to life, however something that has fully developed and gone on to end the lives of many other things has a right to life that can not be forfeited?
Who declares this a right anyway? |
|
|
11/07/2006 08:45:30 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by routerguy666: So something that requires continued life in order to develop has no right to life, however something that has fully developed and gone on to end the lives of many other things has a right to life that can not be forfeited?
Who declares this a right anyway? |
*IMO* - Yep - a small bundle of cells that might develop into a baby has fewer rights than a 50 year old person. My view is pragmatic - the foetus is a bundle of cells without spiritual significance (I do not believe in, for example, the existence of a soul). However, the man is a member of a society with rules that define it (and from which rights (IMO) are derived). I consider execution to be abhorrent as a matter of principle in the context of society for a lot of reasons. I don't think that it can be justified by reference to a person's past actions.
The hypocrisy (IMO) is that Saddam is being executed for his actions in leadership in killing a few hundred, whereas the illegal invasion of Iraq appears to have resulted in the deaths of several hundreds of thousands of people without consequence for the leaders who ordered it.
|
|
|
11/07/2006 08:59:33 AM · #93 |
When does an egg become a chicken? Does anyone ever have scrambled chicken in the morning?
|
|
|
11/07/2006 09:22:55 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by routerguy666: So something that requires continued life in order to develop has no right to life, however something that has fully developed and gone on to end the lives of many other things has a right to life that can not be forfeited? |
So, are you a vegan? |
|
|
11/07/2006 09:25:58 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle: Originally posted by Flash: Why would you support the death of an innocent unborn and oppose the death of a convicted murderer? If you support capitol punishment then it seems to me that you should accept other forms of "choice" death including the right to self defense and even euthenasia.
To me, either you oppose all forms of death (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, capitol punishment, euthenasia, right to self defense, war, etc) or you support them. Choosing some and not others is akin to hypocracy in my opinion. |
The "hypocrisy" that you identify only exists if you consider an unborn foetus to have the same right to life as a living person. I do not think that a foetus has a complete right to life from the point of conception, and so have no qualms about supporting the competing rights of the mother (or community at large in the case of stem cell research) until the foetus has developed sufficiently to benefit from those rights.
When (IMO) the right to life has been established, then I support it with equal vigour, whether that of a newborn child or a convicted mass murderer or military dictator.
The position is not hypocritical, but you can (as you do) make it sound as if it is hypocritical by simplifying the position so as to eliminate the justification. |
legalbeagle;
I believe I am quite familiar with your arguments distinguishing the difference between when "life" begins and thus the apparent lack of hipocracy if in fact that argument is true. My point was actually larger and aimed at both the right and left and their apparent hipocracies based upon their positions on a host of "life/death" issues.
For example:
Left = pro choice (for abortion - for killing))
pro embyonic stem cell research (for killing)
anti-war (against killing)
anti-gun (against killing)
against death penalty (against killing)
pro euthenasia [right to die] (for killing)
Right = pro life (against killing)
anti embryonic stem cell research (against killing)
pro war (for killing)
pro gun (for killing)
pro death penalty (for killing)
anti euthenasia [against right to die] (against killing)
Philosophical arguments can be made (by you and others) that the particulars in each case either can or cannot be "justified". My point is that if the particulars involve taking life, then the person for or against, should be consistent with their position. I see that from neither side in american politics and believe that those for some, and against other forms of life taking are at the least inconsistent and most likely quite hipocritical. By defining "killing" differently in each case they somehow "justify" their opposing positions, when in reality taking life is taking life and whether you support it or are against it, at least be consistent.
2nd edit to add in other words, if the right embraced pro choice positions and pro euthenasia, then they would be consistent in my view. Likewise, if the left embraced pro life and was against euthenasia, then they would be consistent in my view. As it currently stands, neither group is convincing due to their lack of credability on the "life/death" stance.
edit for spelling
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 09:53:00.
|
|
|
11/07/2006 09:38:28 AM · #96 |
Ok I can see the arguement for or against the death penalty, but one thing always leaves me baffled. Why does it matter how someone is put to death. The end result is the same. Why swab the arm of a person your going to execute prior to injecting the needle. Why worry about what might happen THEY ARE GOING TO DIE! Just wonder why people don't just look at it that way instead of saying its inhuman. |
|
|
11/07/2006 10:32:27 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Flash:
in other words, if the right embraced pro choice positions and pro euthenasia, then they would be consistent in my view. Likewise, if the left embraced pro life and was against euthenasia, then they would be consistent in my view. As it currently stands, neither group is convincing due to their lack of credability on the "life/death" stance.
|
If only *real* life were that simple and black and white. Having the courage to stand apart from such idiotic notions of "consistency" is one of the greatest things we as human beings can ever do. If you have to go through life worrying that one thing to stand for conflicts with another thing to stand for on such a generic scale is actually.. frightening. To say that you can't support the right for someone in chronic pain/being kept alive on machines/whatever.. to make the personal *choice* to no longer wish to live with that (or a loved one making that choice for them once they've mentally or physically lost that ability), because it conflicts with opposing someone being inhumanely put to death, or murdered, or any other form of killing that comes with no real choice on the part of the person dying is unreal. I can't believe that someone with a supposed intelligence can even *consider* that such belief systems would all have to mesh under one umbrella system of your precious consistency.
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:44:51 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by hokie: Originally posted by crayon: Why aren't the Buddhists and Hindus making headlines? |
Because they dont have oil :-/ |
You think it might be because they don't go around blowing people up? |
|
|
11/07/2006 10:51:36 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by bigalpha: Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by bigalpha: Does it matter if the judge was related to some of the victims? |
It matters if you believe that Saddam had the right to a fair trial. |
No, I don't. What goes around, comes around. |
Isn't the constitutional right to a fair trial a part of the values of democracy and freedom that the US is supposed to be spreading across the region?
Yes, it's right there; the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do you not believe in the values of your own country's constitution? |
I don't think America has everything right. My personal belief is that he never gave his victims a "fair trial" so why should he get one?
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:52:25 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by bassoon_boi: Killing Saddam is not a solution. It will solve nothing.
(These comments are not meant to be inflamatory, please do not take them as such.) |
It's nothing to do with solving a problem, but more about making sure he is punished for the wrong he's done.
|
|