Quite ridiculous to be honest

[old.Tohtori]

But you're comparing two different things:

If someone says "American government executes man for visiting kiddie porn site", then i'd say "It's their way".

If an afgani(sp?) man shoots his wife, or a US man shoots his wife, it's the same.

You're comparing murder to capital punishment there.

If a bunch of muslism killed some kid, i'd say it's equally bad as a bunch of christians murdering somenoe, as it's not in their hands to do so.

I respect all countries equally, all have good, all have bad, and their law is against this and i'm betting this kid knew EXACTLY how naughty he was.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I'll change it then.


You hear a news like this: American man executed by the state of Texas for reading about women and christianity.

Your answer is a) Someone should shoot those lunatics

b) Its their way and we should respect that.


And btw, kiddie porn and education are not the same things either.

 

[Marc]

live and let live.
its not our country, we dont live there, hence their laws/rules/daily living is not the same as ours and shouldnt be compared.

who says our shit is so right?

exactly what I was going to say

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'll change it then.


You hear a news like this: American man executed by the state of Texas for reading about women and christianity.

Your answer is a) Someone should shoot those lunatics

b) Its their way and we should respect that.


And btw, kiddie porn and education are not the same things either.

For their country it is as "taboo" as kiddieporn, you fail to realize that.

But even if they hit someone in the head with a brick in texas for reading about penises, i'd say "it's their law, don't read about penises".

There's no"if/but" in my judging, no matter how you try to change to some obscure viewpoint.

 

[Dukat]

Gorb, what everyone is saying is that even though they agree its bad to see a 23 yr old being executed for something like this, its the law in thier country.

No one here (I think) is saying they agree with it, or even agree with the law itself per se, they just think that it doesnt change the fact that the law was in place long before this guy did what he did, and its pretty likely(read:almost certain) that he knew what he was doing was breaking a pretty serious religious law.

The example given comparing reading forbidden religious materiel in an islamic country and looking at child pr0n in the US was, I think, a very good one. I think this because in afghanistan (and other islamic countries), breaking religious law is a very, very big taboo, in the same way as child pr0n is in the US.

All anyone is saying is basicly that the guy must've known he was doing something wrong in the first place and took his chances anyway.

 

[Gorbachioo]

For their country it is as "taboo" as kiddieporn, you fail to realize that.

But even if they hit someone in the head with a brick in texas for reading about penises, i'd say "it's their law, don't read about penises".

There's no"if/but" in my judging, no matter how you try to change to some obscure viewpoint.

I understand that. Im not talking about what is and what isnt a taboo. Im talking about what shouldnt be a taboo and more specificly what shouldnt be done if someone breaks taboos that shouldnt exist.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I understand that. Im not talking about what is and what isnt a taboo. Im talking about what shouldnt be a taboo and more specificly what shouldnt be done if someone breaks taboos that shouldnt exist.

Yes, aka, enforcing your views on other countries and customs.

I for one, don't.

I may think some things are silly, or ridiculous even, but i don't go around shouting "kill 'em all!" for having different ways. I leave 'em to their ways and obey them if i go there.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Yes, aka, enforcing your views on other countries and customs.

I for one, don't.

I may think some things are silly, or ridiculous even, but i don't go around shouting "kill 'em all!" for having different ways. I leave 'em to their ways and obey them if i go there.

Okay. But you see, if we were all sheep like you then we would still be burning scientists for witchcraft. Criticism is not a bad thing. Without it nothing would ever change.

I for one can never thank enough the person who was the first one to say that religion is for stupid people. He made it so much easier for me to say it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Okay. But you see, if we were all sheep like you then we would still be burning scientists for witchcraft. Criticism is not a bad thing. Without it nothing would ever change.

I for one can never thank enough the person who was the first one to say that religion is for stupid people. He made it so much easier for me to say it.

Yeah, so because some guy said "religion is for stupid people", you follow it like a sheep.

Great way to show your hypocritical nature again

I'm not a sheep, i do what I want to do and follow no orders i don't feel are right, but i don't question the way other people live 'cause i can live my life the way i want too.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Yeah, so because some guy said "religion is for stupid people", you follow it like a sheep.

Great way to show your hypocritical nature again

I'm not a sheep, i do what I want to do and follow no orders i don't feel are right, but i don't question the way other people live 'cause i can live my life the way i want too.

Awesome comeback there. :lol: (really!)


Ask yourself this: What if Martin Luther King had kept his ideas to himself because of respect for the moral values of his time? Criticism is good. Telling these retards that they are indeed retards is good.

You try to make it sound like not defending whats right is a good thing to do. Its not. Its a cowardly thing to do. We should always speak our minds because if we dont then nothing changes.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Awesome comeback there. :lol: (really!)


Ask yourself this: What if Martin Luther King had kept his ideas to himself because of respect for the moral values of his time? Criticism is good. Telling these retards that they are indeed retards is good.

You try to make it sound like not defending whats right is a good thing to do. Its not. Its a cowardly thing to do. We should always speak our minds because if we dont then nothing changes.

Noone said anything about speaking for your rights being a bad thing, or saying what you think, but forcing your opinion on to others or not accepting that other people are willing to let them live like they want, is just being a dick.

I'm not saying "not defending what's right is a bad thing", i'm saying it's YOUR right thing, and that "not judging others is ok".

 

[Gorbachioo]

Noone said anything about speaking for your rights being a bad thing, or saying what you think, but forcing your opinion on to others or not accepting that other people are willing to let them live like they want, is just being a dick.

I'm not saying "not defending what's right is a bad thing", i'm saying it's YOUR right thing, and that "not judging others is ok".

I would say that Martin Luther King forced his opinion on racist americans. Do you deny that? Was it a bad thing that he did that?

And again, the moral relativism thing. We've been trough this over and over again. Wont bother anymore.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I would say that Martin Luther King forced his opinion on racist americans. Do you deny that? Was it a bad thing that he did that?

And again, the moral relativism thing. We've been trough this over and over again. Wont bother anymore.

Off the point, martin luther king was from that country, changing that country. He wans't preaching on sharia laws in egypt.

 

[UrganNagru]

Ok I'm going to use Godwin's Law.
So your saying that the rest of the world should of stood by when the Axis Blitzkrieged Europe? That was a group of nations getting involved in other nations buisness.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ok I'm going to use Godwin's Law.
So your saying that the rest of the world should of stood by when the Axis Blitzkrieged Europe? That was a group of nations getting involved in other nations buisness.

No. That was one nations interfering with other nations business and the other nation going "oi, you can do what you please in your bedroom but mine is off limits."

I've never said adapt, i've always said "defend if necessary", but also, defend only as a defence.

 

[UrganNagru]

As far as I know the Yanks weren't threatened before Pearl Harbour yet they got involved and picked sides by supplying the allies.

But as another example do you think that other nations shouldn't be able to interfere with what they see as morally wrong, in the case of military actions Bosnia and Kosovo where I'm fairly sure that neither case gave a direct threat to the countries that took action. Or alternatively by more peaceful methods such as sanctions such as in the case of Zimbabwe?

 

[Golena]

Should looking up how to build bombs on the internet then buying large quantities of the ingredients to test the theories with be legal?

After all, it's just "educational" right?

Ask yourself this: What if Martin Luther King had kept his ideas to himself because of respect for the moral values of his time? Criticism is good. Telling these retards that they are indeed retards is good.

Ask yourself this.. What if Hitler had kept his ideas to himself. After all wasn't he just trying to get rid of the Jewish religion? (Yes I know that's not entirely accurate but people who arn't Gorb will i'm sure get the point)

You can try and educate them sure, you don't do it by running in screaming "You're a retard however".

 

[UrganNagru]

Should looking up how to build bombs on the internet then buying large quantities of the ingredients to test the theories with be legal?

After all, it's just "educational" right?




Ask yourself this.. What if Hitler had kept his ideas to himself. After all wasn't he just trying to get rid of the Jewish religion? (Yes I know that's not entirely accurate but people who arn't Gorb will i'm sure get the point)

You can try and educate them sure, you don't do it by running in screaming "You're a retard however".

Yes but that was OK because Hitler was just killing German (and then Polish and Dutch Jews etc.) so it was none of our business.

I apoglogies if in the last couple of posts I've come across as kind of right wing loony, but I took Gorbs side as it looked to me that he was just saying that he found events discussed daft which agree with; not advocating violence because he disagreed with them. Tolerance is great up to a point but a line has to be drawn some where, if we all just burty our heads in the sand cross our fingers and hope for the best, how can we hope for the world to progress.

 

[Mey]

Godwins law has been invoked, who ever mentioned the nazis has lost the argument. Close thread, move along.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes but that was OK because Hitler was just killing German (and then Polish and Dutch Jews etc.) so it was none of our business.

I apoglogies if in the last couple of posts I've come across as kind of right wing loony, but I took Gorbs side as it looked to me that he was just saying that he found events discussed daft which agree with; not advocating violence because he disagreed with them. Tolerance is great up to a point but a line has to be drawn some where, if we all just burty our heads in the sand cross our fingers and hope for the best, how can we hope for the world to progress.

To quote eddie izzard; "We were sort of fine with hitler killing his own."

When he went to other countries, well, that's not "your business" anymore. It's other peoples and their friends business.

Nto to mention war anbd one countries laws are QUITE the different topic.

You can draw lines, to your own life, that i respect, but if you draw lines into other peoples countries, laws, and affairs, that's not ok. Because, in effect, you're just like the terrorists then, wanting to change things and protect your own with premature attacks.

Saying "live and let live" isnt' burying your head in the sand, and if they tried to pull that in my country, i'd sure as hell say something, but as long as it's their business, my head should be nowhere near their a**.

 

[DocWolfe]

religion is ridiculous full stop.

 

[old.Tohtori]

religion is ridiculous full stop.

Hating religion is the NEW religion.

It's just funny that the non-religious people are more A: aggressive B: steadfast C: passionate about it then NORMAL religious people :lol:

 

[Gorbachioo]

To quote eddie izzard; "We were sort of fine with hitler killing his own."

When he went to other countries, well, that's not "your business" anymore. It's other peoples and their friends business.

Nto to mention war anbd one countries laws are QUITE the different topic.

You can draw lines, to your own life, that i respect, but if you draw lines into other peoples countries, laws, and affairs, that's not ok. Because, in effect, you're just like the terrorists then, wanting to change things and protect your own with premature attacks.

Saying "live and let live" isnt' burying your head in the sand, and if they tried to pull that in my country, i'd sure as hell say something, but as long as it's their business, my head should be nowhere near their a**.

How about apartheid in South Africa then? Were we wrong to condemn that? It was their country after all.

 

[old.Tohtori]

How about apartheid in South Africa then? Were we wrong to condemn that? It was their country after all.

Who said anything being wrong about saying "that's bad".

Thing in discussion here is YOU saying I CAN'T say "their country".

And stop answering everything with ANOTHER example.

 

[UrganNagru]

Who said anything being wrong about saying "that's bad".

Thing in discussion here is YOU saying I CAN'T say "their country".

And stop answering everything with ANOTHER example.

I thought the thing in discussion was originallythat a man was in risk of recieving the death penalty due to breaking a religous law by taking an interest in a view point of women that his religion didn't agree with.
Now I thought it has moved on to wether people think that the international community should be able to take action on countries that are doing something they don't agree with. Not what you YOU can say, after all we could use your same arguement to say that YOUR saying that I CAN'T say "we should do something".
Several examples have been used as people think that their a multiple cases where external interference in how a country is run is just.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I thought the thing in discussion was originallythat a man was in risk of recieving the death penalty due to breaking a religous law by taking an interest in a view point of women that his religion didn't agree with.
Now I thought it has moved on to wether people think that the international community should be able to take action on countries that are doing something they don't agree with. Not what you YOU can say, after all we could use your same arguement to say that YOUR saying that I CAN'T say "we should do something".
Several examples have been used as people think that their a multiple cases where external interference in how a country is run is just.

Actually the whole thing started by Gorb going on about "stop this PC bullsh*t" when i said "it's their country".

It evolved to countries and wars and Godwins due to more and more ridiculous examples being piled up to try and "prove me wrong" in my "live and let live" policy.

Several examples have been used, true, and i think i've answered them all and still holds true that, "their country, their rules, as long as it stays in their country".

By the by, i never said YOU can't say that we should interfere.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Who said anything being wrong about saying "that's bad".

Thing in discussion here is YOU saying I CAN'T say "their country".

And stop answering everything with ANOTHER example.

I need new examples because everytime i come up with one you make up some ridiculous excuse so that you dont have to answer the question.

For once in your life just admit that you're wrong. Some things need to condemned. This is one of them.

I'll ask again: Was it a bad thing that the world condemned apartheid?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I actually answered every example you had, you just had crappy examples and i'm quite tired of answering every thing you want confirmed.

You can condemn all you want, just don't come shoving your opinion down my throat.

Link up what this apartheid is and i'll answer that.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I actually answered every example you had, you just had crappy examples and i'm quite tired of answering every thing you want confirmed.

You can condemn all you want, just don't come shoving your opinion down my throat.

Link up what this apartheid is and i'll answer that.

Apartheid ? Wikipedia (please tell me you do know what apartheid is? ;O)


So what you're saying is that we can condem what ever we want as long as we do it politely? Or as long as we just "mention" it. K then. All clear now.

Im having this discussion trough examples because its the only way to do it with you. I'll never get an answer out of you otherwise.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Apartheid ? Wikipedia (please tell me you do know what apartheid is? ;O)


So what you're saying is that we can condem what ever we want as long as we do it politely? Or as long as we just "mention" it. K then. All clear now.

Im having this discussion trough examples because its the only way to do it with you. I'll never get an answer out of you otherwise.

Never heard of it, not in my "book of interests" either. Have to read on it and then reply.

I'm not getting into any longer example discussions with you, 'cause there's always the next convinient example to distract the topic. You're very good at that.

I'm saying you can condemn, all you want, your hearts content, but don't you dare come and say "you're wrong in not condemning!".

Get it? Got it? Good. *smacks Gorb with a newspaper*