Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
132 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - ISLAM & JUDAISM
It's not flimsy, it's international law. It's supposed to prevent another holocaust. It succeeded in the Congo. It failed in Rawanda. It caused it in Iraq (debatable)
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:27 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
puk wrote:
Crimes against humanity are viewed in the eyes of, initially the Geneva conventions, then the UN charter,
the un is a joke. its an extension of the world powers who use it for their motives to get tax free money.
_Master_ wrote:
if its is stoning to death for rape, murder, drugs it is totally cool or some kind of brutal but horrific manner is good. and such methods should be broadcasted publically to deter such horrific potential crimes from hapenning against individuals.
They are very savage though. I'd like to think we are better than that.[/quote]agreed, but to deal with savagery you need to start from more savage, to savage and gradually come down. in the future we would have a black hole chamber. the prisoner simply sets into this chamber and is sucked into the black hole. very scientific and advanced.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:41 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
_Master_ wrote:
these international laws are crafted and suit the fashion of those times in which they where drafted to prevent temporary headaches that may occur again for their selfish movtives. in another time and place these laws would become different. these laws are nascent and need to be revised. why do you take these laws as truth? you should question them instead of taking them at face value.
This currently being used to try war criminals in The Hague, so this is standing law, it evolves (mass rapes can now be included, this was definitely not the case after WWII) and origins only in the 1940's, so there is no reason to assume it is outdated. If you think systematically killing thousands is not a more severe crime than killing one, you simply have a sense of logic that is incompatible with that of most other human beings.
_Master_ wrote:
you are very quick to labelize without considering all facts. You should instead ask what is the motive on which it is done? It is simply backward cause in those islamic countries it is done based on a fairy tale book called quran. It is not based on logic or thinking about the efficiency how to live in a advanced society. Eg a woman reveals a bit of flesh and she is wipped because in the quran it is said so. where is the logic in this?
So it is OK only if is in accordance with your moral values but not if it is with someone else's. Like it or not, laws are based on values, and these happen to differ around the world.
_Master_ wrote:
On the other hand a drug dealer is selling coke and ruining the life of kids who in turn takes to committing other crimes. what should we do to them? let them go free? counseling? or slap a light sentence and let them back into society? what is your solution to this? give me a solution, dont give me wimpy answers that stoning/executions/lifesentence is backward.
You cannot prevent crimes unless maybe you are willing to live in a 1984-like state. In your reasoning why should you not kill every offender / criminal, irrespective of the nature of the crime? For if you don't they could do it again. People make mistakes, and many crimes are pretty harmless / technical. Drugs is a fine example, why are drugs considered evil by the legal system but not alcohol / tobacco? There is no logic in that.
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:42 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
The timeline of rome etc you talk about comes much later, when the experiences of the past where already present in the collective human consciousness of a particular race. So they already had that advantage in their race gene pool.
It didn't seem to have helped them much after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Spanish built a vast empire, then the French and English, Italy never achieved anything any more. So far for the gene theory I'd say.
no my theory is very logical. all Europeans/caucasians share several common genes.
berzerker wrote:
And if the English had better genes, then why didn't they use them before? BTW how come the Eskimos and Siberians do not rule the world? You would expect them to in your theories.
i did not say English had better genes, i said Europeans had the genetic advantage to be more inventive, because in the past the climate forced them to survive harsh conditions and had to invent ways to cope up. England is a small island, so not surprisingly where developed in trade, due to exploration because they where psychologically confined to an island. And btw not better genes, they had some advantages. Eskimos and Siberians are extreme cases, such cases are found every where in every theory. eg like anaerobic organisms who dont breath oxygen.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:56 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
If you think systematically killing thousands is not a more severe crime than killing one, you simply have a sense of logic that is incompatible with that of most other human beings.
laws must be universal and not limited to our world. it must be logical and there must be clear reasoning. just because it is the current developed law, it is not the universal law. the scientific process always propels you to think logically. this is a very powerful thought process we have which is severely underused.
berzerker wrote:
So it is OK only if is in accordance with your moral values but not if it is with someone else's. Like it or not, laws are based on values, and these happen to differ around the world.
that is the primitive way of thinking which i donot encourage. laws should be based on logic and reasoning.
berzerker wrote:
You cannot prevent crimes unless maybe you are willing to live in a 1984-like state.
goal is to drastically reduce crimes, total prevention is utopian at this point in time, unless the genetic level interaction are fully understood to manufacture a rational human consciousness. or perhaps it is already there we are not trying hard enough to realize it.
berzerker wrote:
In your reasoning why should you not kill every offender / criminal, irrespective of the nature of the crime? For if you don't they could do it again.
no, obviously we need to see the nature of the crime.
berzerker wrote:
People make mistakes, and many crimes are pretty harmless / technical.
again you bring in petty crimes. punishment should be awarded based on the nature obviously. For murder/rape/drugs no shying away from brutal punishment.
berzerker wrote:
Drugs is a fine example, why are drugs considered evil by the legal system but not alcohol / tobacco? There is no logic in that.
are you a fucking moron?? do you even know anything about drugs?? you may not, but i do painfully because i happen to know some1 close affected by it. Please do research about drug abuse before coming with your ignorant shallow remarks. drugs are most dangerous, next is alchol and then tobbaco. they are never in the same league. drugs are in a totally different league. drugs alter your personality, once your an addict you always are till you die. you really have no clue.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:01 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
puk wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
i knew you to quote something flimsy like that.
It's not flimsy, it's international law. It's supposed to prevent another holocaust. It succeeded in the Congo. It failed in Rawanda. It caused it in Iraq (debatable)
what is international law? how can it be a law if it not followed? its a fuckin joke. insert => dafur
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:25 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
_Master_ wrote:
puk wrote:
Crimes against humanity are viewed in the eyes of, initially the Geneva conventions, then the UN charter,
the un is a joke. its an extension of the world powers who use it for their motives to get tax free money.
I think that's a knee jerk reaction. It is true that the UN is not working as the original architects had intended (America, Israel, England vetoing everything, countries using it as a bargaining chip). But the UN has managed to give an arena for the poorest countries to voice their opinions.
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:29 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
[quote="_Master_"]
berzerker wrote:
England is a small island, so not surprisingly where developed in trade, due to exploration because they where psychologically confined to an island.
That's not true. I don't think the English ever left England, to any significant degree, until the arrival of Caesar. However, two centuries before Alexander had conquered Persia, and traveled to India. Carthage had dominion over the seas, so it was in charge of trade. Rome had built an extensive network of roads to facilitate trade and transport (primarily of the legions)
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:36 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
_Master_ wrote:
drugs are most dangerous, next is alchol and then tobbaco. they are never in the same league. drugs are in a totally different league. drugs alter your personality, once your an addict you always are till you die. you really have no clue.
Drugs aren't that dangerous. Criminalizing them causes all sorts of problems. In the end the issue is addiction, not drugs. Whether this be addiction to narcotics, shopping, TV, work, food, VGS forums. Furthermore, I don't see why a government should be allowed to tell me what I can and can't consume. I'm not hurting anyone. Doing drugs is not inherently evil (malum in se). I wouldn't mind informing the public on drugs that are dangerous like aspartame, nicotine, sugar, alcohol.
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:46 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
_Master_ wrote:
puk wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
i knew you to quote something flimsy like that.
It's not flimsy, it's international law. It's supposed to prevent another holocaust. It succeeded in the Congo. It failed in Rwanda. It caused it in Iraq (debatable)
what is international law? how can it be a law if it not followed? its a fuckin joke. insert => Darfur
Your example doesn't disprove international law. OJ Simpson. There, does that mean that federal/state law is a joke as well? No.
The issue is a clause in the UN charter which prevents the UN from intervening in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations. This is to ensure the UN doesn't throw its weight around. However, it has the consequence that it can't intervene in things such as stonings in the middle east. In some cases it does work. In the Congo, Belgium pulled out, and the Congo was on the verge of civil war. So Belgium threatened to go back. But the UN managed to ensure that Belgium stayed out. In other cases, like when the US began drilling in Nicaraguan waters, or when the US carried out aggression against Nicaragua by funding the contras from Honduras, the Hague ruled in favour of Nicaragua, but the US just ignored it.
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:51 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
puk wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
puk wrote:
Crimes against humanity are viewed in the eyes of, initially the Geneva conventions, then the UN charter,
the un is a joke. its an extension of the world powers who use it for their motives to get tax free money.
I think that's a knee jerk reaction. It is true that the UN is not working as the original architects had intended (America, Israel, England vetoing everything, countries using it as a bargaining chip). But the UN has managed to give an arena for the poorest countries to voice their opinions.
i dont want to drift away from the topic, the point was about crime being ok against an individual but suddenly being formally regiestered as a crime where a certain threshold number was crossed. to which i said if you look further into earths place in the universe, and use a threshold on that universal scale, no crime has been committed. So number are not a good way for classifying when a crime has been committed or not
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:52 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
puk wrote:
Your example doesn't disprove international law. OJ Simpson. There, does that mean that federal/state law is a joke as well? No.
The issue is a clause in the UN charter which prevents the UN from intervening in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations. This is to ensure the UN doesn't throw its weight around. However, it has the consequence that it can't intervene in things such as stonings in the middle east. In some cases it does work. In the Congo, Belgium pulled out, and the Congo was on the verge of civil war. So Belgium threatened to go back. But the UN managed to ensure that Belgium stayed out. In other cases, like when the US began drilling in Nicaraguan waters, or when the US carried out aggression against Nicaragua by funding the contras from Honduras, the Hague ruled in favour of Nicaragua, but the US just ignored it.
off tangent...no point in replying
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:54 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
puk wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
England is a small island, so not surprisingly where developed in trade, due to exploration because they where psychologically confined to an island.
That's not true. I don't think the English ever left England, to any significant degree, until the arrival of Caesar. However, two centuries before Alexander had conquered Persia, and traveled to India. Carthage had dominion over the seas, so it was in charge of trade. Rome had built an extensive network of roads to facilitate trade and transport (primarily of the legions)
ok what ever, but being confined to an island had something to do with uk being sea superpower for a while.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:08 pm
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
puk wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
drugs are most dangerous, next is alchol and then tobbaco. they are never in the same league. drugs are in a totally different league. drugs alter your personality, once your an addict you always are till you die. you really have no clue.
Drugs aren't that dangerous. Criminalizing them causes all sorts of problems.
sorry, i meant drug addiction.
puk wrote:
In the end the issue is addiction, not drugs. Whether this be addiction to narcotics, shopping, TV, work, food, VGS forums.
this is where drug addiction cannot be compared with other types of addiction. drug addiction is most cases is irreversible. it is a journey into where there is no return. drug addiction is in a totally different league. it is a very very serious problem.
puk wrote:
Furthermore, I don't see why a government should be allowed to tell me what I can and can't consume.
your are not consuming meat or bread or candy. these are potent substances. some preventive measures are required for abuse. they cannot be distributed in schools so freely, but yet they are. govt is not doing enough.
puk wrote:
I'm not hurting anyone. Doing drugs is not inherently evil
no its ok for healthy people. But certain personalities types are prone to addiction. these people get hooked on to drugs, alcohol, tobacco in the first shot according to psychologists. that particular act alone seals their fate in one shot. For this reason alone islamic nations do a good thing by having death punishment if your are found to distribute or consume drugs. simply because it is a very thin line from a to b. i stand by them fully for this issue.
puk wrote:
I wouldn't mind informing the public on drugs that are dangerous like aspartame, nicotine, sugar, alcohol.
addicts are not interested in the dangers, they simply donot care, the line has been crossed. sadly there is nothing you or i can do to those people. if they where zombies in real life, then drug addicts fit the profile.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:54 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
_Master_ wrote:
laws must be universal and not limited to our world. it must be logical and there must be clear reasoning. just because it is the current developed law, it is not the universal law. the scientific process always propels you to think logically. this is a very powerful thought process we have which is severely underused.
It is very good of you to dictate what law should be (some seem to share your view in part), but that's merely theoretical excercise. Law now is as it is.
_Master_ wrote:
punishment should be awarded based on the nature obviously. For murder/rape/drugs no shying away from brutal punishment.
And even more severe crimes are punished the same then? Drugs look completely ridiculous in this list of yours BTW, this wasn't even illegal 150 years ago yet you are sure it must belong on your list of most serious crimes of all eternity.
_Master_ wrote:
do you even know anything about drugs?? you may not, but i do painfully because i happen to know some1 close affected by it. Please do research about drug abuse before coming with your ignorant shallow remarks. drugs are most dangerous, next is alchol and then tobbaco. they are never in the same league. drugs are in a totally different league. drugs alter your personality, once your an addict you always are till you die. you really have no clue.
So you happen to know someone who could not handle a particular drug and this let's you equal (the use of, I presume) all drugs with murder. Suicide then, I would say, but why would you want to make suicide a crime? Anyway, 1 person you know, some scientific background! Many people I know use drugs all the time, no one seems to have been affected in any way. People die of use of tobacco all the time on the other hand, but of course this is completely different.
This someone you know should obviously be killed in a brutal way then, in your reasoning, he is guilty of a hideous crime. Or did someone force him to use drugs?
It's a fact that tobacco and alcohol kill more people than drugs. Cars and guns also kill more people than drugs, let's ban those too!
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:26 pm
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
It is very good of you to dictate what law should be (some seem to share your view in part), but that's merely theoretical excercise. Law now is as it is.
if we all didnt bring up theories and flaws in existing fabrics, we wouldn't progress much. i dont know why you had to put up that link? if your point is that is the law, then id say its half baked. . then you can go ahead post more and more random links.
berzerker wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
punishment should be awarded based on the nature obviously. For murder/rape/drugs no shying away from brutal punishment.
And even more severe crimes are punished the same then? Drugs look completely ridiculous in this list of yours BTW
i clearly stated the degree of punishment should be based on the nature. what EXACTLY are you tring to ask?
berzerker wrote:
(more about that later).
ya sure, google up and cook up some stupid reply.
berzerker wrote:
So you happen to know someone who could not handle a particular drug and this let's you equal drugs with murder.
your stmt shows how immature you really are. Again you really have no clue about drug abuse and how it affects the life's of people around them.
berzerker wrote:
Some scientific background. Many people I know use drugs all the time, no one seems to have been affected in any way. I see persons dying because of tobacco on the other hand.
then clearly you are very very ill informed about drugs as i suggested earlier. i have no more interest in continuing our conversation. my view on the matter stay as they are.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:30 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
_Master_ wrote:
puk wrote:
Your example doesn't disprove international law. OJ Simpson. There, does that mean that federal/state law is a joke as well? No.
The issue is a clause in the UN charter which prevents the UN from intervening in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations. This is to ensure the UN doesn't throw its weight around. However, it has the consequence that it can't intervene in things such as stonings in the middle east. In some cases it does work. In the Congo, Belgium pulled out, and the Congo was on the verge of civil war. So Belgium threatened to go back. But the UN managed to ensure that Belgium stayed out. In other cases, like when the US began drilling in Nicaraguan waters, or when the US carried out aggression against Nicaragua by funding the contras from Honduras, the Hague ruled in favour of Nicaragua, but the US just ignored it.
off tangent...no point in replying
What? How is that off topic. You said the UN is useless, and I am pointing out why it might come across like this.
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:31 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
_Master_ wrote:
puk wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
England is a small island, so not surprisingly where developed in trade, due to exploration because they where psychologically confined to an island.
That's not true. I don't think the English ever left England, to any significant degree, until the arrival of Caesar. However, two centuries before Alexander had conquered Persia, and traveled to India. Carthage had dominion over the seas, so it was in charge of trade. Rome had built an extensive network of roads to facilitate trade and transport (primarily of the legions)
ok what ever, but being confined to an island had something to do with uk being sea superpower for a while.
That's b/c an island is difficult to invade (Operation Sea Lion), and england had the biggest navy for a while.
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:31 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
He does not want to discuss once being proved wrong or using false or incorrect arguments. Some surprise there!
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:35 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
punishment should be awarded based on the nature obviously. For murder/rape/drugs no shying away from brutal punishment.
And even more severe crimes are punished the same then? Drugs look completely ridiculous in this list of yours BTW
i clearly stated the degree of punishment should be based on the nature. what EXACTLY are you tring to ask?
How is me smoking a joint the same as me raping a woman. Or murdering a man?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 6 of 15Goto page Previous1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 13, 14, 15Next
