Irony in Islam

[jeskill]

I apologize, I thought you were Muslim.

While I was on an exchange to Turkey, I had interesting discussions with Muslim friends about modesty. I do believe that one of the reasons cited for covering the female body is modesty (Kind of a side note, but a Muslim friend of mine believed that modesty came from within -- therefore she has no problem wearing skimpy dresses but she refuses to have premarital sex or drink. I thought that was an interesting concept.) Anyways, in Turkey, there are separate beaches and separate swimming pools for men and women so that women can maintain their modesty. So I just wonder if the reason why there's not a lot of Islamic women in the Olympics is because wearing a lot of clothes will hinder performance. It seems there are two choices: either have a swim meet where only women can participate and observe, or you don't play.

[Tiger's Eye]

I apologize' date=' I thought you were Muslim.

While I was on an exchange to Turkey, I had interesting discussions with Muslim friends about modesty. I do believe that one of the reasons cited for covering the female body is modesty (Kind of a side note, but a Muslim friend of mine believed that modesty came from within -- therefore she has no problem wearing skimpy dresses but she refuses to have premarital sex or drink. I thought that was an interesting concept.) Anyways, in Turkey, there are separate beaches and separate swimming pools for men and women so that women can maintain their modesty. So I just wonder if the reason why there's not a lot of Islamic women in the Olympics is because wearing a lot of clothes will hinder performance. It seems there are two choices: either have a swim meet where only women can participate and observe, or you don't play.[/quote']

 

No problem.

 

I agree with you in saying that there is a modesty factor that most Muslim women carry, and with regards to the veil, I'm not completely sure how all veiled women athletes go about doing sports such as serious swimming, soccer, track, etc. It makes sense what you are saying: wearing a lot of clothes would hinder athletic performance and one way to solve this would be through making single gender events.

 

My main and initial point, though, was that Muslim women have participated in the Olympics and probably will continued to do so (though there not so many that would call very much attention). As far as I know, there is no rule saying that Muslim women can't compete in athletics, but who knows, I could be wrong.

[JohnB]

My apologies for the delay, I had a post written and then my IE spat the dummy. So I fear I will be backtracking a bit.

 

I'm wondering if perhaps I haven't made my position clear as there seems to be some confusion. So to make it clear;

 

1. I don't believe that any individual has the right to demand the death of another individual either within the legal framework of a nation's laws or outside it. Regardless of the accused crime. If it is wrong for one individual to make this demand, then it is wrong for all individuals to make such demands.

 

2. I don't believe any group of individuals (mob) has the right to demand the death of any other group or individual, either within the legal framework of a nation or outside it. Regardless of the accused crime. If it is wrong for one group, then it is wrong for all groups.

 

3. I don't believe that a government has the right to kill it's own citizens, either within a legal framework or outside it. This is wrong, always.

 

4. I believe that the government of a sovereign nation has the right to make appropriate laws for the good governance of their nation and enforce those laws with what they consider to be appropriate penalties. Provided they don't contravene (3) above or otherwise allow atrocities.

 

Aardvark, the link Bettina posted that I referring to was this one. It deals with the laws made and penalties imposed within a legal framework by the legal government of a sovereign nation.

 

I think these laws and penalties are wrong. Bettina thinks they are wrong. I think the laws in the US that use the DP are wrong too. Bettina thinks they're right. My original question was; "Why is it wrong for them, but right for you?" I see a double standard here.

 

So far, the only reason that either you or Bettina have come up with boils down to "It's all right for us, because we're better than they are. They impose these penalties because they are barbaric, we impose them as a proportionate response to a crime." Strangely enough, the people and governments in these other nations don't agree that you are better than them. They also believe that they are imposing a proportional punishment to the crime. Can you show that your "proportional resonse" is better than theirs? Without resorting to "But their crimes are silly."

 

I brought up the Nazi laws to show that atrocities can be committed in a perfectly legal manner. I happen to agree with you, just because it's legal doesn't make it right. An atrocity is an atrocity. Period. You'll note that I'm still consistent with point (4) above.

 

Again the response to the example was "They are barbaric, so it was wrong to have legal killings." So why is it not barbaric for the US to have legal killings? Done within the legal framework of the nation involved? I think we just disposed of that point. From my POV, any and all laws of this type are barbaric and uncivilized, regardless of the nation or supposed crime involved.

 

From your arguments, you seem to be saying that if these uncivilized nations stop killing people, when they grow up and become civilized, they can start killing people again. This is an aspect of "civilized" that I have great trouble with.

 

Re "Founding Fathers". The comment was directed at Bettina as I know she's a US citizen.

(my founding fathers probably said something like, ''give us your land, animals, women and any money you have and we might not slaughter you all, ha ha ha.....etc'')

Wordy lot weren't they. Mine just said "Bugger off. It's ours now.";)

 

Bettina. Our sense of right and wrong aren't as different as you might think. The only real difference between us is that while I may think that pedophiles look their best as the centrepiece to a funeral I will not support a system that puts him there.

 

However, if I caught one in the act, the only things the cops will need to bring is a body-bag and a mop. If this seems contradictory, think of it in military terms. It is alright to kill the enemy in combat, but not after he has surrendered and been captured. That's sort of how I see it.

 

What I was calling you on, was the seeming double standard regarding judicial killings. Obviously the nazis were wrong, even if it was "legal". What they did was "legal" but wrong, why is what the US does legal and right? I don't see a difference, to me they are both "legal" and wrong.

 

For you to think on. When does judicial killing become murder? When does it become an atrocity? How many people have to die before the category changes? How do you decide?

 

If an innocent man is killed by mistake by a legal system, is it murder? How many innocents have to die before you decide the system is flawed and needs changing?

 

In the example I gave you said that if the government involved killed 100,000 you'd invade. Good answer. But where is your limit? What if they only killed 1,000? 10,000? 50,000? At what number does it start being an atrocity?

 

My answer is simple. 1 is too many. Any other answer requires you to set some sort of arbitary limit. Killed 5,000? Naughty, you should stop. Killed 5,001? An atrocity, the government must be removed. Silly isn't it? But no matter what number you choose, you have the same situation.

 

As an aside. In that situation, you wouldn't invade as I don't think the US allows women in the front lines. However I would be both pleased and proud to have you fly the transport bringing me more ammunition.

 

To repeat, it is wrong IMO for any individual or group to demand the death of any other individual or group for any alleged crime and it wrong for any government to give in to those demands.

 

The papers should have shown a bit of courtesy by not reprinting the cartoons and the Muslims should grow a skin and get over it.

 

Question. I have heard that there is no defined power structure in Islam as there is in Christianity. In christianity to become a priest, you go to the seminary and study etc. etc. In Islam basically anyone who can convince others of his knowledge can be a Mullah. Is this correct?

 

If so, could it be that we are hearing more from the radical clerics because they are simply trying to increase their audience? In perhaps a similar fashion to the left and right wing radio and TV personalities that we have in the West? They might be trying for a larger audience by being loud and confrontational like Jerry Springer does. Just a thought.

[Aardvark]

1. I don't believe that any individual has the right to demand the death of another individual either within the legal framework of a nation's laws or outside it. Regardless of the accused crime. If it is wrong for one individual to make this demand' date=' then it is wrong for all individuals to make such demands.[/quote']

 

Agreed.

 

2. I don't believe any group of individuals (mob) has the right to demand the death of any other group or individual, either within the legal framework of a nation or outside it. Regardless of the accused crime. If it is wrong for one group, then it is wrong for all groups.

 

Agreed.

 

3. I don't believe that a government has the right to kill it's own citizens, either within a legal framework or outside it. This is wrong, always.

 

Agreed

 

4. I believe that the government of a sovereign nation has the right to make appropriate laws for the good governance of their nation and enforce those laws with what they consider to be appropriate penalties. Provided they don't contravene (3) above or otherwise allow atrocities.

 

Agreed.

 

Gosh, this isn't too good, we're begining to run out of things to argue about:eek:

 

Aardvark' date=' the link Bettina posted that I referring to was this one. It deals with the laws made and penalties imposed within a legal framework by the legal government of a sovereign nation.

 

I think these laws and penalties are wrong. Bettina thinks they are wrong. I think the laws in the US that use the DP are wrong too. Bettina thinks they're right. My original question was; "Why is it wrong for them, but right for you?" I see a double standard here.

 

So far, the only reason that either you or Bettina have come up with boils down to "It's all right for us, because we're better than they are. They impose these penalties because they are barbaric, we impose them as a proportionate response to a crime." Strangely enough, the people and governments in these other nations don't agree that you are better than them. They also believe that they are imposing a proportional punishment to the crime. Can you show that your "proportional resonse" is better than theirs? Without resorting to "But their crimes are silly."

 

Ah ha, a point we can find room to disagree upon, excellent! Well, only partly.

 

I don't think that capital punishment in the West is a good thing, but i think that reserving capital punishment for crimes such as child murder is self evidently more civilised (or less barbaric) than using capital punishment for crimes such as sexual promiscuity or apostasy. When a nation hangs a teenage girl for the crime of having sex before marriage it strikes me as clear evidence that that nation is less morally developed, to be frank, it is an inferior civilisation not worthy of the same respect as other civilisations.

 

I acknowledge that this is a dangerous area, that mores and values vary but i do not accept the moral relativism that judges all cultures as automatically deserving equal respect. I do not deny that nations right to impose its own laws, but i reserve the right to consider that nation to be backward and morally and culturally inferior in contrast with other nations and cultures.

 

 

 

I brought up the Nazi laws to show that atrocities can be committed in a perfectly legal manner. I happen to agree with you, just because it's legal doesn't make it right. An atrocity is an atrocity. Period. You'll note that I'm still consistent with point (4) above.

 

Oh dear, another point of agreement.

 

Again the response to the example was "They are barbaric, so it was wrong to have legal killings." So why is it not barbaric for the US to have legal killings? Done within the legal framework of the nation involved? I think we just disposed of that point. From my POV, any and all laws of this type are barbaric and uncivilized, regardless of the nation or supposed crime involved.

 

I think that there is a difference here in both degree and in principle. In terms of degree, the Nazi actions are simply incomparable to anything that has or does happen in the USA. In terms of principle, both systems work on a legal basis, but the US legal system is dedicated to a concept of Justice. It makes a conscious effort to apply judgements and punishments according to a commitment to upholding a system of justice. The Nazi legal system was not based on any concept of justice, it was based on furthering the perceived interests of the state.

 

There is a fundemental difference in principle between a legal system based on a code of justice and a legal system based on state expedience.

 

From your arguments, you seem to be saying that if these uncivilized nations stop killing people, when they grow up and become civilized, they can start killing people again. This is an aspect of "civilized" that I have great trouble with.

 

Not quite, my argument is that if they grow up and become civilised them that will mean they will kill fewer people. As it happens, i don't approve of capital punishment, but i can see a reasonable moral argument for it in the context of a legal system that only very carefully applies it as the ultimate sanction, not as a means of social and political control.

Re "Founding Fathers". The comment was directed at Bettina as I know she's a US citizen.

 

Wordy lot weren't they. Mine just said "Bugger off. It's ours now.";)

 

Well' date=' when you come to nick a country it's good to make a bit of an effort to make the occasion special, i think the natives appreciate it.

 

 

What I was calling you on, was the seeming double standard regarding judicial killings. Obviously the nazis were wrong, even if it was "legal". What they did was "legal" but wrong, why is what the US does legal and right? I don't see a difference, to me they are both "legal" and wrong.

 

Different legal systems can have different justifications. Therefore one legal system could be considered morally invalid and another legal system to be morally valid. Legality itself does not automatically make an action correct.

 

For you to think on. When does judicial killing become murder?

 

When it is unjust. To judicially kill a fairly convicted murderer is an execution. To deliberately kill an innocent person would be murder, regardless of the legal justification.

 

When does it become an atrocity? How many people have to die before the category changes? How do you decide?

 

Atrocity is an emotive word, but i think it would normally apply when a defenceless group is being subjected to systematic and unjust lethal attack.

 

If an innocent man is killed by mistake by a legal system, is it murder?

If the legal system is attempting to uphold a concept of justice then it is a tragedy. If the legal system is operating on notions other than justice, such as intimidation or social control, then it is murder.

 

How many innocents have to die before you decide the system is flawed and needs changing?

 

Personally, the answer is one. But i can see reasonable people having other viewpoints on utilitarian moral grounds, for instance weighing the number of innocent lives believed saved by the existence of capital punishment versus those killed by it.

 

In the example I gave you said that if the government involved killed 100' date='000 you'd invade. Good answer. But where is your limit? What if they only killed 1,000? 10,000? 50,000? At what number does it start being an atrocity?

 

My answer is simple. 1 is too many. Any other answer requires you to set some sort of arbitary limit. Killed 5,000? Naughty, you should stop. Killed 5,001? An atrocity, the government must be removed. Silly isn't it? But no matter what number you choose, you have the same situation.[/quote']

 

Sure, in agreement again about that being an atrocity and the invalidity of arbitrary numbers. However, as to the question of how bad the situation needs to be to justify an invasion. Well, i don't think there is any straightforward answer. The real world is a messy place.

 

As an aside. In that situation, you wouldn't invade as I don't think the US allows women in the front lines. However I would be both pleased and proud to have you fly the transport bringing me[/b'] more ammunition.

 

The USA does have women in combat roles now. Gender equality apparently, personally i think that is wrong, but that's another argument.

 

To repeat, it is wrong IMO for any individual or group to demand the death of any other individual or group for any alleged crime and it wrong for any government to give in to those demands.

 

Agreed. (although examples such as Hitler would stretch my commitment to my principles)

 

The papers should have shown a bit of courtesy by not reprinting the cartoons and the Muslims should grow a skin and get over it.

 

It was a discourtesy to reprint the cartoons, but it should be remembered that they wouldn't have been reprinted except for the reaction of the Muslims in the first place. If they had kept their protests peaceful then they would not have been reprinted. They were only reprinted as an act of defience to death threats.

 

Question. I have heard that there is no defined power structure in Islam as there is in Christianity. In christianity to become a priest, you go to the seminary and study etc. etc. In Islam basically anyone who can convince others of his knowledge can be a Mullah. Is this correct?

 

Yes.

 

If so, could it be that we are hearing more from the radical clerics because they are simply trying to increase their audience? In perhaps a similar fashion to the left and right wing radio and TV personalities that we have in the West? They might be trying for a larger audience by being loud and confrontational like Jerry Springer does. Just a thought.

 

You're on the ball there. in order to establish themselves a self styled Mullah needs a high profile and rabble rousing and deliberately working up an artifical crisis is one way to do it.

[Bettina]

JohnB

 

However, if I caught one in the act, the only things the cops will need to bring is a body-bag and a mop. If this seems contradictory, think of it in military terms. It is alright to kill the enemy in combat, but not after he has surrendered and been captured. That's sort of how I see it.

 

The quote you made above, in reference to a pedophile, is not good enough for me. Nor is it good enough for how I feel about the Islamics who are killing in the name of allah. Evil does not earn a bed, free medical care, a television set, a community room, and three meals a day for the rest of their lives. These beasts deserve a box buried deep in the ground because they don't deserve the gift of life. What is to stop someone from raping as many little kids as he can get away with, knowing that he will never be put to death. I would bet that the death penalty has been a deterent to at least some rapists. Even if it was just one rapist that didn't commit the crime because he doesn't want to die, would be worth it. Where is your deterent.

 

Joseph Smith is on trial right now for the kidnapping, brutal rape, and murder of an 11 year old child named Carlie Brusia. You should read a little about her, and while you do, picture her lying on the ground struggling with her kidnapper as he tore off her clothes. Think of her realizing that no one was going to help her. Think of her unable to fight back against someone much stronger than her. Think of her crying and pleading for her life. Think of what was going through her mind as he was... in his own words to his brother..... "having rough sex with her". Can you imagine what was on her mind? Well I can. Right now, in court, he is pleading for his life because he doesn't want his children to be without a father. If I was a juror, I would be crying for him too, but I would still give him death.

 

Were talking about the lustful murder of an innocent 11 year old little girl. Her life was stolen from her and untill the day you die, people like you will never convince me with your analogy that I'm wrong in seeking his death. I don't care how much he pleads for his life. I want him dead and buried in an unmarked grave in the middle of some landfill. I feel no empathy for him at all because I put it where it belonged... with her. However, I feel differently about Andrea Yates who drowned all her kids. She is a nutcase and does not deserve death. She deserves a mental instituion because its not her fault. Don't anyone jump in and tell me that all rapists are sick to some degree because that won't work with me.

 

I apply that same reasoning to the victims who have been put to death by the uncivilized Islamic culture. Its all the same to me. Evil needs to be removed from society and buried, not given free meals and a warm bed. No offense intended JohnB. I'm just defending my point of view...

 

Bettina

 

P.S. Now that I turned 18 I pity the pedophile who has me as a juror.

[Pangloss]

You would not be allowed to sit on such a jury, unless both parties agreed that your predisposition was acceptable.

[pcs]

You would not be allowed to sit on such a jury, unless both parties agreed that your predisposition was acceptable.

 

That's not actually the case. Both parties voir dire the jury; in some jurisdictions they have a set number of preemptory challenges but beyond that the judge makes the call.

[Severian]

After speaking to her for 10 seconds, no judge would think Bettina should be on a jury....

[Bettina]

After speaking to her for 10 seconds, no judge would think Bettina should be on a jury....

 

Yes they would because they wouldn't know what you know...

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

So much for the moral high ground, then. You've just thrown it out the window, hon.

[Bettina]

So much for the moral high ground, then. You've just thrown it out the window, hon.

 

Yeah I know...he's right. I couldn't lie.

 

Dang it. I'll never be a juror then...

 

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

For what it's worth, I applaud your courage and intentions. Everyone goes through moral dilemmas. Better to recognize and deal with them, even if you decide later that you've made a mistake, than to pretend they don't exist.

[Severian]

Dang it. I'll never be a juror then...

 

Cheer up - maybe some day they will choose people to flick the switch on pedophile's electric chairs by state lottery! You still have a chance!

[Bettina]

Cheer up - maybe some day they will choose people to flick the switch on pedophile's electric chairs by state lottery! You still have a chance!

 

I'm assuming sarcasm in your quote so:

 

I want the parents of the girl he killed to have first options to pull the switch. Only if they opt out would I want the state lottery.

 

But in any event, would you be there to defend the beast?

 

Bettina

 

Edit: Another thing to continue with the OP.... Look at the news today about how much killing is going on over that cartoon, and look at the million dollar reward to kill the cartoonist. What a treacherous religion Islam is.

[JohnB]

Aardvark, we are going to have trouble continuing the debate if we keep agreeing with each other.

 

Please don't think I agree with Moral Relativism, I think it's a load of horsehockey. As you say, the choosing of crimes deserving of the DP will vary from nation to nation, society to society. I'm not suggesting that all societies should be treated equally, merely pointing out that if you don't treat them equally, then there must be some reasonable grounds for the difference. And " 'cause we're better than them" just doesn't cut it.

 

In the case of the DP, the only way that I can see to avoid this morals based dilemma is to do away with the damn thing altogether. This changes the argument from "Uncivilized nations do it because ....... and Civilized nations do it because ........" to "Uncivilized nations do it and Civilized nations don't."

 

The bottom line is that I just don't trust governments (my own included) to have this sort of power. The term "Within a legal framework" becomes meaningless if the bad guys write the laws.

Different legal systems can have different justifications. Therefore one legal system could be considered morally invalid and another legal system to be morally valid. Legality itself does not automatically make an action correct.

I agree with you with this proviso. Since the idea of "Morally Valid" is a product of the society it pertains to, how do we objectively prove that one is superior to the other? Again, I agree that the Western system is better, but as I can't objectively prove it, I can't say it.

Well, when you come to nick a country it's good to make a bit of an effort to make the occasion special, i think the natives appreciate it.

Ah yes, Governor Phillip ordered one of his men to drop his trousers when they first met the Aboriginals in Sydney Cove. This set the tone for the Australian character from then on.

 

An innocent man killed by a legal system may be a tragedy, but it is a totally preventable one. If you know a tragedy is going to happen but take no action to avert it, are you still civilized?

Agreed. (although examples such as Hitler would stretch my commitment to my principles)

Agreed. The idea stretches mine to the breaking point. But if we only follow our morals when it suits us, then how can we say we hold to them?

 

Bettina, believe me you have caused me no offense. You passionately believe your POV and are arguing well for it. As I once did. I have no sympathy for the scum you referred to, my sympathies like yours are with the little girl and her family.

I would bet that the death penalty has been a deterent to at least some rapists.

Bet all you want, but you have no way to prove that statement. The DP would be why the crime rate in the US is so much lower than Australia's then. Oh wait, it isn't, is it? It doesn't act as a deterrent for the simple reason that when the offender is committing a crime, he/she doesn't believe they will get caught. If you think you'll get away with it, why would you worry about any possible sentence?

 

Add to that, if you're going to get death for the rape, you may as well make it rape/murder because then you are depriving the prosecution of their star witness. Personally I think a live victim is better than a dead one.

 

As I said, I once fought for your arguments. Two questions changed my mind, answer them if you can.

 

1. Where do you draw the line? And how do you explain to the victim's family that their loved one wasn't hurt enough to go over that line? You ask me to imagine the little girl, well run that conversation through your mind a few times and see how you would feel.

 

2. How do you make restitution after you find out you've executed the wrong person? Given that no system devised by humans will be perfect, then you have to accept that you will kill innocent people. Perhaps you could tell me how you would explain that one to the family. Because I sure as hell couldn't. Add to that, if you don't care about killing the innocents, then exactly how are you better than the guilty?

 

On the cartoons, I came across this while searching for something else. I thought it a very good take on the situation from Islamonline.

[Bettina]

Bettina, believe me you have caused me no offense. You passionately believe your POV and are arguing well for it. As I once did. I have no sympathy for the scum you referred to, my sympathies like yours are with the little girl and her family.

 

Bet all you want' date=' but you have no way to prove that statement. The DP would be why the crime rate in the US is so much lower than Australia's then. Oh wait, it isn't, is it? It doesn't act as a deterrent for the simple reason that when the offender is committing a crime, he/she doesn't believe they will get caught. If you think you'll get away with it, why would you worry about any possible sentence?

 

Add to that, if you're going to get death for the rape, you may as well make it rape/murder because then you are depriving the prosecution of their star witness. Personally I think a live victim is better than a dead one.

 

As I said, I once fought for your arguments. Two questions changed my mind, answer them if you can.

 

1. Where do you draw the line? And how do you explain to the victim's family that their loved one wasn't hurt enough to go over that line? You ask me to imagine the little girl, well run that conversation through your mind a few times and see how you would feel.

 

2. How do you make restitution after you find out you've executed the wrong person? Given that no system devised by humans will be perfect, then you have to accept that you will kill innocent people. Perhaps you could tell me how you would explain that one to the family. Because I sure as hell couldn't. Add to that, if you don't care about killing the innocents, then exactly how are you better than the guilty?

 

[/quote']

 

I see what you mean about detterent. Your right. It wouldn't work if he thinks he can get away with it and they all do.

 

Answer to question 1.... Easy and without gray areas. Maybe you missed what I once said. I would not hand down the DP if he lets the little girl or boy live so he would get life instead. Raping is one thing, murder is another. If the little girl lives, so does he.

 

Answer to question 2.... I'm talking about the pedophiles that have admitted guilt like Joe Smith (Carlie Brusia 11), John Evander Couey (Jessica Lunsford 9), Michael Briere (Holly Jones 10). I have a big list if you care to see it.

 

In some cases where the killer refuses to admit guilt, but his semen has been found "deep inside" the girl, his fingerprints and dna all over her, coupled with him being a known sex offender, and other incriminating evidence, would be enough to convince me to execute him.

 

"Beyond the shadow of a doubt" is much more valid today with dna testing than it was years ago without it. We have actually freed people today because of dna testing, and so, if I find his dna inside a little girl, he's dead.

 

Bettina

[JohnB]

Answer to question 1.... Easy and without gray areas. Maybe you missed what I once said. I would not hand down the DP if he lets the little girl or boy live so he would get life instead. Raping is one thing, murder is another. If the little girl lives, so does he.

So if he keeps her prisoner for 3 weeks raping and torturing the girl 5 times a day, he still lives? Again, how do you explain to the girl's parents that she wasn't hurt enough?

Answer to question 2.... I'm talking about the pedophiles that have admitted guilt like Joe Smith (Carlie Brusia 11), John Evander Couey (Jessica Lunsford 9), Michael Briere (Holly Jones 10). I have a big list if you care to see it.

This does not answer the question of how you explain to the relatives of the innocent man killed how it happened.

We have actually freed people today because of dna testing,

Yes, 17 out of 176 prisoners on Death Row in Georgia(?) were exonerated of the crime for which they were convicted. The outgoing Governor commuted all death sentences to life because of the high rate of wrongful convictions.

 

Just so you know, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm explaining why I changed mine. I found myself asking moral questions that I couldn't answer satisfactorily within the moral framework I had. So far, you haven't been able to answer them either. Think about it, that's all I ask.

 

And always remember that emotionally, you and I are in total accord.

 

Cheers.

[john5746]

Just so you know' date=' I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm explaining why I changed mine. I found myself asking moral questions that I couldn't answer satisfactorily within the moral framework I had. So far, you haven't been able to answer them either. Think about it, that's all I ask.

[/quote']

 

So if we extend that to War, you wouldn't find that acceptable, since you know it will result in the death of many innocents?

[Bettina]

So if he keeps her prisoner for 3 weeks raping and torturing the girl 5 times a day' date=' he still lives? Again, how do you explain to the girl's parents that she wasn't hurt [i']enough[/i]?

 

This does not answer the question of how you explain to the relatives of the innocent man killed how it happened.

 

Yes, 17 out of 176 prisoners on Death Row in Georgia(?) were exonerated of the crime for which they were convicted. The outgoing Governor commuted all death sentences to life because of the high rate of wrongful convictions.

 

Just so you know, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm explaining why I changed mine. I found myself asking moral questions that I couldn't answer satisfactorily within the moral framework I had. So far, you haven't been able to answer them either. Think about it, that's all I ask.

 

And always remember that emotionally, you and I are in total accord.

 

Cheers.

 

I did answer those questions JohnB. We are not talking about past injustices to innocent people. I am talking about now, so there is no innocent man killed.

 

If he kills the girl he dies. If he tortures her for three weeks he gets life. I would wish him dead, but he didn't kill her so he lives.

 

I won't change my mind ever, and I know emotionally you and I are the same.

 

Bettina

[JohnB]

John, I see war as a different thing. There is a difference between civillians getting caught in a crossfire and rounding them up and killing them.

 

Having said that, it would be wonderful if we could do away with war altogether, but I don't see it as possible in the near future. Until that day, we do as best we can and try to minimise the civillian casualties. This means not killing someone if we can avoid it. All DP sentences are avoidable.

 

Bettina, you haven't answered either question. Question 1 was; "What do you tell the parents?" Do you really think that "He didn't kill her so he shouldn't die" will wash with them? Will they be satisfied with your "Justice"?

 

If he had kidnapped her, committed the offense and then killed her in the first 3 hours, he gets the DP. If he keeps her for three weeks of torture and rape he doesn't. Again, how do you explain this to the parents? What arguments will you use? Run the conversation through your mind.

We are not talking about past injustices to innocent people. I am talking about now, so there is no innocent man killed.

You don't think there will be injustices in the future as well? DNA testing isn't perfect and it deals in probabilities. DNA tests don't say "X did it" they say that "The odds that X didn't do it are 1 in 50 million. We think that there are no more than 3 men in the US that this DNA could come from." There is a world of difference between these two statements.

 

So how do you tell the innocent's relatives? What are you going to say to them?

 

As an aside. I do like the way this debate has remained civil. I've seen others on this topic degenerate quickly.

[Bettina]

John' date=' I see war as a different thing. There is a difference between civillians getting caught in a crossfire and rounding them up and killing them.

 

Having said that, it would be wonderful if we could do away with war altogether, but I don't see it as possible in the near future. Until that day, we do as best we can and try to minimise the civillian casualties. This means not killing someone if we can avoid it. All DP sentences are avoidable.

 

Bettina, you haven't answered either question. Question 1 was; "What do you tell the parents?" Do you really think that "He didn't kill her so he shouldn't die" will wash with them? Will they be satisfied with your "Justice"?

 

If he had kidnapped her, committed the offense and then killed her in the first 3 hours, he gets the DP. If he keeps her for three weeks of torture and rape he doesn't. Again, how do [b']you[/b] explain this to the parents? What arguments will you use? Run the conversation through your mind.

 

You don't think there will be injustices in the future as well? DNA testing isn't perfect and it deals in probabilities. DNA tests don't say "X did it" they say that "The odds that X didn't do it are 1 in 50 million. We think that there are no more than 3 men in the US that this DNA could come from." There is a world of difference between these two statements.

 

So how do you tell the innocent's relatives? What are you going to say to them?

 

As an aside. I do like the way this debate has remained civil. I've seen others on this topic degenerate quickly.

 

JohnB

 

Your previous posts indicated to me that you are against the DP in any form and your question one was in two parts. Where I drew the line, and what I would tell the parents. I already answered the first part and thought the second part was answered by that.

 

In any event, I would simply tell the parents that justice was served. He is being locked up for life without parole which satisfys your feelings on the DP. The law in my scenario was "You kill the child, you die. Let her live, and you live". The parents may not like it, but that would be the law. I don't know how to clarify it any more than that, but to me, it removes the person from society... but just remember, it he killed her, he would get death. I have no moral problems with that at all.

 

As far as your comment on future injustices.... I'm not Henry Lee. I just don't know enough about how accurate DNA testing is.

 

There is a man in the news today, MIchael Morales, who has admitted guilt for kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 17 year old teenage girl for pleasure. Some people want to save him....I don't, I want him dead.

 

So, what are you willing to tell the mother of that girl, why you want to see this man live?

 

Bettina

[AweBurn]

I'll say this again. If we don't stop the spread of the Islamic religion' date=' its going to kill us, and I do mean kill us.[/quote']

 

It's not the religion thats at fault here. If you look to the history books, people have abused religions left and right to accomplish a means that is entirely outside that which the religion preaches. I hope Bettina realizes this and doesn't whole-heartedly believe that we should stop the spread of the Islamic religion. If that were the case i suppose it would be equally plausible that she demand that Christianity be exterminated for its transgressions during the Crusades (which are the direct result for the Muslim hatred of the West now...don'cha know).

 

-AweBurn.

[Bettina]

It's not the religion thats at fault here. If you look to the history books' date=' people have abused religions left and right to accomplish a means that is entirely outside that which the religion preaches. I hope Bettina realizes this and doesn't whole-heartedly believe that we should stop the spread of the Islamic religion. If that were the case i suppose it would be equally plausible that she demand that Christianity be exterminated for its transgressions during the Crusades (which are the direct result for the Muslim hatred of the West now...don'cha know).

 

-AweBurn.[/quote']

 

I hope AweBurn realizes that I could care less about the now that was before. I am worried about the now thats now, and the now in question is caused by a warlike religion that is run by a bunch of murderous barbarians who think blowing up women and little kids is not only a sign of victory for Alla, but gets them bedded by virgins in the afterlife.

 

I don't see anything equally plausible....

 

Bettina

[JohnB]

So, what are you willing to tell the mother of that girl, why you want to see this man live?

Maybe Aussies are different, but we accept that we don't kill our people. Period. We would rather pay to keep 9 absolute animals in prison than kill 1 innocent by mistake. Maybe we take the view that savage and barbarous societies do it and civilized ones don't. If you look at the list here, then you may notice that most of the nations that you would perhaps call "Civilized" are in the abolishionist category and included in the retentionist category are the very nations that you are calling savage and barbarous.

There is a man in the news today, MIchael Morales, who has admitted guilt for kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 17 year old teenage girl for pleasure. Some people want to save him....I don't, I want him dead.

Unfortunately for you, the judge who sentenced him doesn't. He apparently now believes that he sentenced Morales based on false testimony. Link.

 

Something to keep in mind. Just because I oppose the DP doesn't mean I want to keep these scum alive. I really don't care about them that much. It's not that I want to keep them alive, I don't want my society to kill them. It has nothing to do with them, but everything to do with the way I want my society to operate. A subtle but important difference I think.

[Bettina]

Maybe Aussies are different' date=' but we accept that we don't kill our people. Period. We would rather pay to keep 9 absolute animals in prison than kill 1 innocent by mistake. Maybe we take the view that savage and barbarous societies do it and civilized ones don't. If you look at the list here, then you may notice that most of the nations that you would perhaps call "Civilized" are in the abolishionist category and included in the retentionist category are the very nations that you are calling savage and barbarous.

 

Unfortunately for you, the judge who sentenced him doesn't. He apparently now believes that he sentenced Morales based on false testimony. Link.

 

Something to keep in mind. Just because I oppose the DP doesn't mean I want to keep these scum alive. I really don't care about them that much. It's not that I want to keep them alive, I don't want my society to kill them. It has nothing to do with them, but everything to do with the way I want my society to operate. A subtle but important difference I think.

 

JohnB, you put me on a wild goose chase.

 

A: That link you provided dosn't show me where it says anything about false testimony. Morales openly admitted guilt in front of the judge for raping and killing a teenage girl for pleasure. Please show me what you meant.

 

B: The other link showing the countries I call barbarous and savage, and your comment above is proof that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

In answering my question, your only reasoning is that you do not want to make a mistake and kill an innocent man. I said, the man is not innocent. He has admitted guilt in killing a little girl for his own pleasure. There is no mistake here.

 

So are you saying your only reasoning is that "We do not kill our people"? Thats it? Thats all you would tell the mother?

 

I respect you for your convictions, but nothing on the face of this earth, no god, not people holding signs, would ever convince me to spare a person for killing a little girl...never, ever.

 

Bettina