Quite ridiculous to be honest

[Gorbachioo]

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*

All of the "convinient examples" have been about the same thing. I have to change them because you refuse to answer them and make up some excuse so you dont have to.

I will dare to say that because its the truth. Some things need to be condemned and not doing so is a cowardly act.

 

[old.Tohtori]

All of the "convinient examples" have been about the same thing. I have to change them because you refuse to answer them and make up some excuse so you dont have to.

I will dare to say that because its the truth. Some things need to be condemned and not doing so is a cowardly act.

No, your examples have been ALL answered and how they don't fall in the "their business" section.

And a BIG *sigh* that you didn't get it yet...

There's a big difference in letting people live, being a coward and honest to gods 110% not giving a f*ck.

 

[Gorbachioo]

No, your examples have been ALL answered and how they don't fall in the "their business" section.

And a BIG *sigh* that you didn't get it yet...

There's a big difference in letting people live, being a coward and honest to gods 110% not giving a f*ck.

Could this be more useless.


Just admit that you're wrong. For once in your life. Just do it. It really isnt as scary as you think it is.

 

[Raven]

What was the question again?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Could this be more useless.


Just admit that you're wrong. For once in your life. Just do it. It really isnt as scary as you think it is.

Wrong about what the f*ck exactly?

About not thinking like you?
About letting other people live and ru their contries as they see fit?
About not giving a f*ck?

Go on, tell me oh great and wise Gorb, predictor of all things "gonna f*ck up" and probably will then bail out and cop-out o some claim, TELL ME, what i'm wrong about?

 

[Gorbachioo]

Wrong about what the f*ck exactly?

About not thinking like you?
About letting other people live and ru their contries as they see fit?
About not giving a f*ck?

Go on, tell me oh great and wise Gorb, predictor of all things "gonna f*ck up" and probably will then bail out and cop-out o some claim, TELL ME, what i'm wrong about?

You said that we should not condemn what other countries do. Wrong. We should. (Live and let live i think it was)

And to proove this: Was it a bad thing that we condemned apartheid in South Africa? By the above logic, your answer would be yes. Anyone else would say no. = You're wrong. Okaythenbyebyenowkthxbyekkk?!?!

 

[Raven]

such anger!

 

[old.Tohtori]

You said that we should not condemn what other countries do. Wrong. We should. (Live and let live i think it was)

And to proove this: Was it a bad thing that we condemned apartheid in South Africa? By the above logic, your answer would be yes. Anyone else would say no. = You're wrong. Okaythenbyebyenowkthxbyekkk?!?!

No.

I said "it's their way, the kid broke the law, he probably knew he was braking it, the law is a bit ridicilous but their way".

YOU, brought into it all ridicilous different scenarios to somehow prove me wrong.

I never said we shoudlnt' judge or condemn, i said I don't.

If you want to discuss other matters, ask.

 

[DocWolfe]

No.

I said "it's their way, the kid broke the law, he probably knew he was braking it, the law is a bit ridicilous but their way".

YOU, brought into it all ridicilous different scenarios to somehow prove me wrong.

I never said we shoudlnt' judge or condemn, i said I don't.

If you want to discuss other matters, ask.

ridiculous

 

[old.Tohtori]

ridiculous

Thank ya, will try to remember

 

[DocWolfe]

Thank ya, will try to remember

No I was saying your post was ridiculous!

 

[~Latency~]

we have every right to condemn what they're doing to that guy.. ever heard of human rights? it's sick and twisted to put a student on death row for reading an article on women & islam.. if you were born into a religious state with those kind of rules and did something most of the world population would consider perfectly fine yet you were imprisoned, you wouldn't have the same view.. it's their rules SURE, but that doesn't give them the right to treat someone like that, rules or no rules muthalicka

 

[Golena]

How does religious rules differ from Laws in this country?

The law in the UK is a collection of rules which we have to follow or we get punished.
The laws in their country are a collection of rules that they have to follow or they get punished. The only difference is that they base their rules upon a religion. Most of our current laws also come from religion tho. The concept that killing people is a bad thing, that you should respect your neighbour. All laws originating from religions. Both at the end of the day are simply a set of rules that were made up. If their religious rules are stupid and retarded, so are all our laws.

Now since we've decided that punishing someone based upon religious beliefs is "stupid" and should be "condemed" then why should people breaking the law in this country be punished?

In fact if I came and showed a load of hardcore pornography to a bunch of 5 year olds would punishing me be outrageous. It's not like 2 people having sex is an unnatural thing right? The only real reason that it could possibly be bad to show it to them is because someone MADE UP a rule saying it was bad, and we all follow it like sheep. I'm fairly sure if you traced where the concept of showing porn to a 5 year old was bad you'd find it originated from some religion or another. So your saying that religious rule should be upheld but another one shouldn't? Where's the logic in that?

 

[Gorbachioo]

How does religious rules differ from Laws in this country?

The law in the UK is a collection of rules which we have to follow or we get punished.
The laws in their country are a collection of rules that they have to follow or they get punished. The only difference is that they base their rules upon a religion. Most of our current laws also come from religion tho. The concept that killing people is a bad thing, that you should respect your neighbour. All laws originating from religions. Both at the end of the day are simply a set of rules that were made up. If their religious rules are stupid and retarded, so are all our laws.

Now since we've decided that punishing someone based upon religious beliefs is "stupid" and should be "condemed" then why should people breaking the law in this country be punished?

In fact if I came and showed a load of hardcore pornography to a bunch of 5 year olds would punishing me be outrageous. It's not like 2 people having sex is an unnatural thing right? The only real reason that it could possibly be bad to show it to them is because someone MADE UP a rule saying it was bad, and we all follow it like sheep. I'm fairly sure if you traced where the concept of showing porn to a 5 year old was bad you'd find it originated from some religion or another. So your saying that religious rule should be upheld but another one shouldn't? Where's the logic in that?

"If their religious rules are stupid and retarded, so are all our laws." What the hell is this supposed to mean? I mean.... well ofcourse!!

You're using the moral relativism thing when it suits you. The truth is that most of our rules dont have any real reasons behind them and are just results of our own narrow-mindedness.

To give you an example: why is necrofilia wrong if the dead person has given his permission for it? There is no reason that isnt about or own inability to accept difference. Yet 99,9999999999% of people (including me) think that it shouldnt be allowed.

But to the point: The fact that we randomly ban things doesnt mean its okay for muslims to take away basic rights like the right to educate yourself.

If it became illegal in your country to learn about christianity would you accept that?

 

[old.Tohtori]

But to the point: The fact that we randomly ban things doesnt mean its okay for muslims to take away basic rights like the right to educate yourself.

Our basic rights, OUR, and noone said to the kid "read and die!", it's WHAT he read about.

You just don't get it in your narrow mind that "hey, in this country, it's as bad(if not severely worse) as watching kiddie porn".

We had the same thing around our "civilized" country.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Our basic rights, OUR, and noone said to the kid "read and die!", it's WHAT he read about.

You just don't get it in your narrow mind that "hey, in this country, it's as bad(if not severely worse) as watching kiddie porn".

We had the same thing around our "civilized" country.

Child porn is not the same thing and not even "the same thing for them". But even if it were: Would you accept the death penalty for watching child porn?

And ive told you already you cant use the "its their country and their rules argument" whenever it fits you. If you do that then you also have to be okay with them stoning women to death for getting raped. It is their way afterall. You dont think this way so cut the moral relativism crap.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Child porn is not the same thing and not even "the same thing for them". But even if it were: Would you accept the death penalty for watching child porn?

And ive told you already you cant use the "its their country and their rules argument" whenever it fits you. If you do that then you also have to be okay with them stoning women to death for getting raped. It is their way afterall. You dont think this way so cut the moral relativism crap.

I use it with everything, not when it "fits" me, this is something you STILL fail to realise.

It doesn't matter if other go about gallavanting and changing things, it doesn't change the fact that any case, any way, any law, any place, i stick to "their country, their rules" and the "your life, your way".

Nothing coward about it, it's not paathy, it's nothing "grand", it's simply live and let live.

Now, can you accept it or not?

And no i won't answer your "examples and questions", 'cause i dispise entrapment...

If you want to discuss things, fine, but don't try and change who i am or claim i'm wrong.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I use it with everything, not when it "fits" me, this is something you STILL fail to realise.

It doesn't matter if other go about gallavanting and changing things, it doesn't change the fact that any case, any way, any law, any place, i stick to "their country, their rules" and the "your life, your way".

Nothing coward about it, it's not paathy, it's nothing "grand", it's simply live and let live.

Now, can you accept it or not?

And no i won't answer your "examples and questions", 'cause i dispise entrapment...

If you want to discuss things, fine, but don't try and change who i am or claim i'm wrong.

"I use it with everything, not when it "fits" me, this is something you STILL fail to realise."

You do huh? Okay. In Darfur the Janjaweed militias rape women because they know that often the husbands of those women will kill them because sharing their wives is humiliating to them.

Would you able to understand that? Would you shake hands with one of those men? I really want to hear you say this.

 

[old.Tohtori]

"I use it with everything, not when it "fits" me, this is something you STILL fail to realise."

You do huh? Okay. In Darfur the Janjaweed militias rape women because they know that often the husbands of those women will kill them because sharing their wives is humiliating to them.

Would you able to understand that? Would you shake hands with one of those men? I really want to hear you say this.

You can put any and every example on the table.

I won't say it's "cool that they do that", and no, i wouldn't want to associate with those men, but i would say the same thing as i did to every other example on this thread. "their country, their laws".

Really don't know what you're trying to do and WHY for valhallas sake.

 

[Gorbachioo]

You can put any and every example on the table.

I won't say it's "cool that they do that", and no, i wouldn't want to associate with those men, but i would say the same thing as i did to every other example on this thread. "their country, their laws".

Really don't know what you're trying to do and WHY for valhallas sake.

If you think you're going to get away with this by dancing around the question then you're wrong. I got you cornered bitch.


So if its "their country, their laws" then wouldnt that mean that outside intervention would be forbidden? For example, economic sanctions or just simply telling them that they're assholes would both be wrong?


edit: hey cuuuul. I got a new title!! <3333

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you think you're going to get away with this by dancing around the question then you're wrong. I got you cornered bitch.


So if its "their country, their laws" then wouldnt that mean that outside intervention would be forbidden? For example, economic sanctions or just simply telling them that they're assholes would both be wrong?


edit: hey cuuuul. I got a new title!! <3333

Glad to see you're all grown up

Different topic altogether. It's not forbidden to intervene, i'm saying I won't.

You're mixing "what should/would countries do" with "what should/would tohtori do".

Also, there's a big difference in "their country their laws" and "i don't think that's right". Me saying "their country, their laws" doesn't mean i say it's ok, nor that i condemn all actions against it.

Get it yet?

PS: Mind telling me what you're trying to prove here?

 

[Gorbachioo]

Glad to see you're all grown up

Different topic altogether. It's not forbidden to intervene, i'm saying I won't.

You're mixing "what should/would countries do" with "what should/would tohtori do".

Also, there's a big difference in "their country their laws" and "i don't think that's right". Me saying "their country, their laws" doesn't mean i say it's ok, nor that i condemn all actions against it.

Get it yet?

PS: Mind telling me what you're trying to prove here?

But SHOULD we intervene?


I have to go, i'll be back in the evening to finish this.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But SHOULD we intervene?


I have to go, i'll be back in the evening to finish this.

I don't give a crap honestly speaking, that's the thing, intervene or not, that's politics and all that.

I say it's their country their rules, but if some hotshot president doesn't, then it's that country and their rules.

 

[aika]

this sounds like Spain in the 14-15th centuries.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I don't give a crap honestly speaking, that's the thing, intervene or not, that's politics and all that.

I say it's their country their rules, but if some hotshot president doesn't, then it's that country and their rules.

Should we condemn it then? Means not doing anything but just telling them that they are dickheads.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Should we condemn it then? Means not doing anything but just telling them that they are dickheads.

If you want, that's the whole f*cking point.

 

[Gorbachioo]

If you want, that's the whole f*cking point.

You're going to have to answer this some day. Im not giving up.


Would condemning it be the right thing to do?

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're going to have to answer this some day. Im not giving up.


Would condemning it be the right thing to do?

Your asking a crooked question.

Do you want me to answer if people can condemn it, or if i condemn it?

 

[Gorbachioo]

Your asking a crooked question.

Do you want me to answer if people can condemn it, or if i condemn it?

Im asking what i asked before. (really, i have the patience. Just answer the question)

Would condemning it be the right thing to do?

 

[Jeremiah]

You would need to define what "right" is, and I think thats the point that toht is trying to make.

We can say it is "right" to condemn, "right" to intervene, "right" to tell someone their beliefs are rubbish. What I think toht is trying to say is that you need to either somehow prove it is right, else what more is it than just our opinion.

Its the difference between objective and subjective again. Objective: Earth's gravity accelerates things at 9.8m/s. Subjective: Their laws are wrong.

Objective stuff can be governed by external rules - such as physics, chemistry, mathematics etc... What governs the subjective stuff? Society? Our own moral system?

At the end of the day, objective stuff is true for all cases - the rules are absolute. Subjective things are not true for all cases. Sometimes they can masquerade as being true when all parties involved are in agreement.

Taking the case of the guy looking at other religious material - we live in a liberal society, where we generally believe everyone has the right to read, think and say what they want. Hence, we believe that the ruling on this guy is wrong. But you cannot pretend that theres some external law which makes it objectively wrong. Even morals aren't intrinsically objective.