SeeingEvil
Uhmm, maybe from Amnesty, the very source you claim you checked with?
Check again.
Amnesty said 1770, and 'Chinese Academics' estimated 10000. Are we reading the same links?
Honestly WyrdeOne if this had been an official debate over in the debate forum, Muaddib would have won it by a landslide in my opinion.
Well, that's your opinion. If you can formulate a suitable debate question, and Muaddib agrees, I'd be happy to debate him on the issue of Iranian
executions.
Muaddib
Wyrdeone, the united States does not execute people for "having a sharp tongue", or for "being political prisoners", they do this in Iran and some
other countries.
Presumably the 'sharp tongue' judge is a hardliner to beat all hardliners. However, they certainly do have a culture that values respect,
self-control and deference very highly, and if the girl was mouthing-off in court and blaming others for her behavior it's not really that strange
that the judge sought to make an example of her. I shouldn't even have to say this but I do - I disagree with the logic behind executing people (or
punishing them at all) for moral offences, victimless crimes, and the like, but I can't tell the Iranians how to run their country any more than they
can tell me how to run mine.
We actually share most of the moral/social values of the Iranians (*most), but the obvious difference is that they go so far as to legislate more of
their morality than we do. As I've said numerous times, I disagree with their laws: I wouldn't live there if you paid me.
And as far as 'political prisoners' I believe I've addressed this issue already. Sedition is sedition, no matter how you slice it. The people who
broke the law knew the consequences and they braved them for a chance at doing some good for their countrymen and their country. With any luck, their
sacrifice will not be in vain, and there will be a popular revolution before too long.
Ah, so even if it comes from the horses' mouth as to the reason for executions, such as the 16 year old girl having a "sharp mouth" "it is a moot
point" now?
This story is hard to piece together: there are no court transcripts available, and the details change depending on where you read them. I've gone
and found a couple other sources detailing the facts of the case because it seemed unbelievable to me. It's pretty accurate though, the story y'all
tell - at least as far as the few sources readily available...
Link 1
Link 2
I'd like to take more time and try to figure out if all the accounts track back to one questionable source as stories of this sort often do.
She was 16 according to her birth certificate, but the judge declared her 22 based on her physique. She had been arrested multiple times for
non-crimes like attending a party, dressing indecently, having sex out of wedlock. She shouted at the judge and threw off her veil in court. One
article claimed there was a petition from locals saying she was a bad influence on other girls, and a font of indecency - but the petition was only
signed by the arresting officers...
There's a lot more to this - does it have its own thread? If it doesn't, I'll start one and we can talk about this one case more.
What more can I say, besides what's already been said - the law is as foolish as one you're likely to find. Crimes against chastity? Nonsense.
Things change when people sacrifice themselves for ideals. Maybe this young girl will spearhead the coming change in Iran - equality or death.
Sounds like a motto I could agree with. A man probably wouldn't have been executed for her crimes, or even charged with them in some cases.
No WyrdeOne, there is a big difference between having a difference of opinion, even politically, and having political demonstrations, and murdering
people due to any reason....
Wait, was someone executed for protesting or having a difference of opinion? I must have missed that link. Regardless, remember that there as in
here, a difference of opinion regarding the law does not give you license to disregard the law.
I do, however, support those who disobey the law as a form of protest against it. Doesn't make you immune to the consequences though, as everyone
should by now be aware.
It was me who said that....and again, you are leaving out a fact...those people are not executed for being retarded...they have been executed for
murdering someone...
I'm not leaving out the fact, I just don't see how it's relevant. I think it's wrong that the state kills people with the intelligence of
children. That's the law though. Reasonable men can disagree, isn't that right?
First of all, it was a bit more than just for robbing chocolate....
Yeah, as I said, the men I referenced appear on first glance to be scumbags, and no big loss for society. Not the point though.
The point, if you remember, was that many people in this nation disagree with the three strikes concept, and with the execution of mentally
handicapped people or people of a younger age, but the nation continues (in some states) to put these people to death.
It's pretty much the same in Iran, different regions are more religious and/or more extreme than others. The same girl, behaving the same way, in a
more laid-back part of Iran might not have raised too many eyebrows.
If you continue to dig into the story, it appears she had a sexual relationship with a married member of the moral police. So, there's a lot about
that story than meets the eye. It provides a convenient excuse for people looking to inflame popular sentiment though...
When a person who has committed two previous serious or violent crimes before, continues to show that he/she will rob again, even when they know at
the third strike they will land in jail for 25 years, there is a high probability that person will perform another "serious or violent crime"...
hence 25 years in prison stops them from commiting a "serious or violent crime". That is the intention of the "Three Strikes" law, to avoid any
possible "serious or violent crimes being performed.
Sounds very similar to the logic being used to justify the insane execution of a (possibly) promiscuous young Iranian girl. She was likely to
continue to break the law, so they killed her to stop that possibility. Is there anything to your continued argument besides your opinion over the
relative wrongness of this execution? How many times do I have to agree with you on that point before you cease making it?
My argument, from the beginning, was that it is the right of the Iranian citizenry to make and enforce their laws. I insist on their right to do so
only because I insist on OUR right to do so. Are we even in disagreement? I can't tell anymore...
Well fella, you did state you would change your mind if you were shown wrong, but you are not changing your mind. That is called, "calling your
bluff"
Stated it and meant it - I will always consider anything I'm shown and I have NO problem admitting when I'm wrong on the facts. Look back and
re-read my original argument, please, and tell me how you have proved it wrong.
In fact, what has your post or SeeingEvil's post done to even address the issues I raised about national sovereignty and the rule of law, about the
God-given right to free will?
Does that mean we can't discuss what happens in other countries?
Absolutely not, no discussion of any kind will ever be allowed on this discussion board. Just use emoticons.
Seriously though, what ever gave you that idea? Of course we can discuss it, 'nuff said was my way of showing that the point made in that post had
been made (IMO), guess I was wrong...
Have you seen anyone in this thread state "let's bomb Iran to the Dark Ages for this"?....
I don't know, I haven't had the chance today to read the three new pages...
Anyway, if you catch this post, please reply and point out what it is that we disagree on. I'm really unsure now, because I read back and can't
figure it out.
Remember, I said 'Most, if not all, of the prisoners executed by Iran were found guilty of crimes that would warrant the death penalty in many other
places'
So we can play semantics about the word 'most', or we can take the number of prisoners executed by Iran in a year, subtract the number of extreme
cases where seemingly innocent people got the noose thanks to a handful of nutters, and agree to disagree - the latter, please.
By the way, can you think of a suitable debate question? I'd love to prove SeeingEvil wrong.
... ? 
