It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: ~75% of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan favor stoning people for adultery

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


I'm not a Muslim, nor live in Egypt but I do wholeheartedly support numbers 1 & 2.

Amazing to see how perspectives of justice can be so different in diverse locations. In the recent past in the union (within the lifetime of those still living), people were hung by the neck, beaten and killed by lynch mobs because of the pigmentation in their skin. That would likely seem atrocious to the Egyptians, as would numbers 1& 2 to secular citizens of the Union (particularly females).

Understanding that in most locations throughout the world, the "institution" of marriage is one of religious heritage, custom and law, it seems fitting that the religion (the law maker) would determine justice for a breach of its own contract (adultery).

Lopping off hands sure does do a number to deter crime though. Imagine the potential space the taxpayers would need in their wallets when the funds plundered to feed, house, guard, tend and entertain the largest prison population, were returned to the wallet. Hmmm..




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Look - it's really quite simple.

Being intolerant of someones desire to choose thier own religion or sexual partner to the point of killing them - is not moraly equivalent to being intolerant of someone who intentionally kills other people.


This is even simpler...

Judging a culture's morals and cultural practices is based upon the axiom that the judger's cultural morality is the ''correct'' one. This is abundantly untrue.

Ergo, your ''pecking order'' of things that should and shouldn't be done in your society is ridiculous, on a larger scale.



Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
It doesn't need to be analysed it is just obvious!


Only ''obvious'' in a culturally biased perspective.

I prefer objectivity to my rationalisations.


Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Suppose Muslims were apt to kill anyone who preffered tea to coffee - is that equivalent as well?


Absolutely.
Just as those that were deemed to be ''of the devil'' were tortured and murdered by Christians in the West, over the years.


edit on 6-12-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



OK...................so being intolerant of Shaia law is our 'culture' - ergo we are entitled to it, and it should be respected - BY YOU!



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 




You accept that cultural practices are relative, so presumably you'd agree that people in Egypt and Pakistan favouring the stoning of adulterers is as valid as people in the USA agreeing with the gassing and electrocution of murderers.


Not from our relative POV. And thats what matters to us, we dont live in cultural and moral vacuum, and the fact that culture and morality is relative suddenly does not mean that it does not matter.



We can only judge both of these examples from a personally biased perspective that can't stand up to scrutiny.


Scrutiny of who? There is no absolute moral authority so judging these examples from our moral POV is still the best thing we can do.



''They'' can migrate here with their morality if they want, and unless you want to make laws against thoughts in people's heads, then I can't see a problem with immigrants from these cultures migrating to the West.


We can make laws against migration based on their initial location, we dont need to check thoughts in their heads. Since we know that there is high probability that persons culture and morality from location x is incompatible with ours, we can agree to outlaw or limit migration from there to here. Just as you can not allow a person incompatible with your morals into your house. Because as you have said, morality stems only from agreement in the society, so by allowing them to come here, we risk they will outnumber us and agree on their morality here.



..then I can't see a problem with immigrants from these cultures migrating to the West.


How can you not see it? Unless you dont share the same relative morals as we do, and agree with their.. Do you?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

''We'' are far more tolerant, yet you appear to be completely intolerant of another culture's values and laws.


And where Sir, may I enquire have I shown intolerace?

I merely observed that as a generalisaion, which ideally should be avoided, some, if not most, would argue that Islamic society seems to have regressed to a more brutal, repressive and intolerant level.
Indeed, the levels shown are not too disimilar to those shown in The Dark Ages and The Spanish Inquisition etc, and we are pleased that we have progressed and developed since then are we not?



The ''some that would argue'' are mainly Westerners who judge other cultures by their own Western standards and upbringing, rendering the judgement futile from an objective basis.


So that renders any observations of different cultures equally futile from an objective basis?
Do we just spend the rest of our days in isolation ignoring other cultures and societies?
Is it by some strange sort of reasoning just us 'Westeners' who have lost our objectivity or does the same apply to other cultures and societies that seek to observe and pass judgement on us?

Your reasoning, if applied, would have handicapped human development throughout history and is nothing more than a poor attempt at excusing brutal and barbaric acts by repressive and all controlling belief systems.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by sakokrap
 




I'm not a Muslim, nor live in Egypt but I do wholeheartedly support numbers 1 & 2

Lopping off hands sure does do a number to deter crime though. Imagine the potential space the taxpayers would need in their wallets when the funds plundered to feed, house, guard, tend and entertain the largest prison population, were returned to the wallet. Hmmm..


And imagine the huge economic loss caused disability of a person that is unable to work and must instead receive benefits for the rest of his life due to commiting one minor theft.
And imagine the huge economic loss caused by stoning productive member of a society due to commiting adultery.

Prisoners should be put to mandatory work, problem solved, no need for barbaric laws.
edit on 7/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Under your solution, you end up with a slave state, imho.

Unfortunately, your reply evidences severe mental conditioning to socialist policies. We were all subject to them in state-schools, and often times adhere to the idea of "I am my brother's keeper."

Fortunately however, there exists a long heritage of appreciating others based upon the content of their character, and in the past no one was forced to be plundered by armed gangs in order to redistribute wealth to others (particularly undesirables). Alternatively, there also was vibrant charitable community support to help the hindered or challenged citizens. It wasn't perfect, but at least we didn't have one thief stealing resource from our family's table in order to feed, fund and support a 1 handed thief as your model suggests.

Has it ever occurred to others that people must take personal responsibility for their actions and live (or die) by the consequences thereof? Seems to me that this has been happening for millennium, and imho it is unwise to change it.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


The solution for this problem is easy. We have superior weapons, so we should kill all inhabitants of muslim countries. Problem solved.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sakokrap
 




Under your solution, you end up with a slave state, imho.


There is a very long road from prisoners working at least to pay for their prison to slave state and I dont think it will progess that way. Either way, better to live in a moderate slave state than in a state that does not respect basic human rights and allows for barbaric punishments.



Unfortunately, your reply evidences severe mental conditioning to socialist policies.


Paying benefits to DISABLED people (I was not even talking about child or unemployed support) is not socialism. Its basic human compassion. Socialism means common ownership of the means of production. You can have fully capitalist state (private ownership) with some form of welfare system.



Fortunately however, there exists a long heritage of appreciating others based upon the content of their character, and in the past no one was forced to be plundered by armed gangs in order to redistribute wealth to others (particularly undesirables).


And it was immoral IMHO. Crime is perfectly all right if the alternative is death or life threatening situation. Thats why you can kill someone who threatens others (defense), thats why you can steal from those who will not be threatened by it to provide basic resources for those who would otherwise be threatened (welfare) - not providing urgent help while being easily able to do so is also a crime.



Alternatively, there also was vibrant charitable community support to help the hindered or challenged citizens.


If other citizens decide to voluntarily help them, then my point still stands - they are using money to support them which they could otherwise use for other things, from the economic POV it does not matter if its voluntary or not.



Has it ever occurred to others that people must take personal responsibility for their actions and live (or die) by the consequences thereof? Seems to me that this has been happening for millennium, and imho it is unwise to change it.


No, we are not wild animals but civilized people living in 21st century. If we have power to alter it or at least mitigate its bad side (and we have), why not do it? Something being natural does not mean its inherently good or moral, just as something being artificial does not mean its inherently bad.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I wonder how many muslims, from those two countries posted on this.
I mean, we are acting as outside dictators on another worlds if we feel that this should change



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sakokrap
 





Under your solution, you end up with a slave state, imho.


Oh, and to hear this from someone who wants to stone adulterers is absurd..



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 





Regarding Stoning etc, they are laws, they have nothing to do with Human Rights.


Laws should to be based on human rights.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Poll: ~75% of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan favor stoning people for adultery


www.examiner.com

In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, this and other areas of Islam in politics were examined.

According to the poll, extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah received mixed rating from the Muslim public ranging from Jordan showing a slight majority of those polled see the organizing in a favorable light, to Turkey where neither Hamas nor Hezbollah had favorable ratings in double digits and are generally viewed as negative.
(visit the link for the full news article)





That's because those morons are still living in the stone age. (no pun intended)
edit on 7-12-2010 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Moral relativism is the biggest cop out ever designed......



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





The solution for this problem is easy. We have superior weapons, so we should kill all inhabitants of muslim countries. Problem solved.


Right. I shouldnt even justify this statement with an answer. But i will anyway because i cant stand it when people completely over generalise.

There is alot of corruption is muslim countries but it happens everywhere, we just hear of it more because of the current case of islamaphobia the world seems to have come down with.
Im sure where you come from, you have had your fair share of serial killers and the like.
So i guess i should kill all inhabitants of your country right? Just following your rules.

Back onto topic:
If religion wasnt used as a means of control im sure this would be non-existent. Its pretty sad that something that can completely turn someones life around can be used to kill in the wrong hands.
Im so against this though, women get treated like dirt in those countries. I really hope the statistics are wrong only because its truly shocking.

But then again, this could also be a part of 'Muslim' propaganda, because for all you know they probably just polled the extremists.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Poll: ~75% of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan favor stoning people for adultery

Freak'n uneducated stone-age neanderthals. :shk: Would someone educate these guys soon? Geeeze ... it's 2010 and they have either been left behind or they refuse to be civilized. Gotta' just looooove this peaceful religion .. blame the rape victim for the rape and murder women by stoning. Not only is that sickening, but they don't even give women fair representation in the courts. It's vile.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Poll: ~75% of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan favor stoning people for adultery

Freak'n uneducated stone-age neanderthals. :shk: Would someone educate these guys soon? Geeeze ... it's 2010 and they have either been left behind or they refuse to be civilized. Gotta' just looooove this peaceful religion .. blame the rape victim for the rape and murder women by stoning. Not only is that sickening, but they don't even give women fair representation in the courts. It's vile.


Should we drop a nuke to stop them doing what they want IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES?

FFS why does everyone have to conform to One world law and one world government BS.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
''We'' are far more tolerant, yet you appear to be completely intolerant of another culture's values and laws.

Not all cultures are worthy of tolerance or respect. Cultures that murder women by stoning because a man claims she committed adultry ... cultures that say a rape victim is the guilty party and should be whipped ... cultures that don't allow women an equal voice in the courtroom ... cultures that say a woman's court testimoney is only worth half that of a man's ... cultures that hang homosexuals in the town square simply because they are homosexuals ... cultures that don't allow women to learn to read, go to school, drive a car, .... cultures that that demand women be beaten if an ankle or a wrist shows through their slave-gear (burka) ... cultures that demand a woman be beaten if a man thinks she is 'walking too fast' on a sidewalk ... etc etc ... those cultures are not worthy of respect or tolerance. They have no value in a civilized society. Those cultures should be terminted through education. Telling the TRUTH about those cultures, instead of just parrotting the politically correct line of - every culture is worthy of tolerance - is the way to bring justice to those oppressed by these cave-man style 'cultures' that still hold billions of humans down in the world.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doujutsu
Should we drop a nuke to stop them doing what they want IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES?

EDUCATE the poor suckers. Tell the TRUTH. TEACH them that they are living like neanderthals and that women have a right to justice when raped .. that they have brains ... that men do NOT have a right to beat a woman simply because she is walking down a sidewalk and her wrist shows ... EDUCATION and TRUTH.

As far as the excuse 'in their own countries' ... the neanderthal behavior is a cancer on the world. It will spread and make the planet even sicker unless surgery is performed. Surgery with TRUTH and EDUCATION.

does everyone have to conform to One world law and one world government BS.

Deflection .. it's got nothing to do with One World Government.
Your attempt to drag that in doesn't work.

What happens on one side of the planet effects everyone.
The world shouldn't have to 'tolerate' that which is intolerable.
Stoning women for adultry is not tolerable to a civilized planet.
Not allowing women a fair say in a court room isn't civilized either.
Considering the birth rates and expansion of this kind of lunacy .. it's a global threat.

ATS thread - Outbreeding the enemy
edit on 12/7/2010 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
How can a race such as Islam (once the hotbed of knowledge, science, art and poetry when Europe was still in the dark ages) be so ignorant.

A backwards law for a once very advanced people.

Islam has changed from a progresive culture interested in progressive science and the advancement of the arts only to become now trapped in its own dark age.

We live in astonishing times.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doujutsu

Should we drop a nuke to stop them doing what they want IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES?


Of course we shouldn't.
But it shouldn't stop us from expressing our disgust at such practices and we should not allow them to export such practices IN OUR OWN COUNTRIES!
It cuts both ways.



FFS why does everyone have to conform to One world law and one world government BS.


But when such laws are brutal, barbaric and repressive do we remain quiet or do we have a moral obligation to at least voice our disgust?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join