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

Originally posted by Doujutsu
With all the mass media and secular education they should have been able to figure it out by now? No?

Well look at you. With all the truth being shown to you and all the mass media and secular education going on .. YOU still don't get it .. you still defend people stoning women to death for being accused of adultry. Now multiply that a thousand fold and that's what it's like in a cult. All encompassing .. all consuming .. takes over every aspect of your life. Read up on cults. Read up on basic psychology - skinner for example.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Doujutsu

 

I'm not that arrogant to suggest that I have all the answers to such a complex and important issue.
Apparently you are!

I am an expert in minding my own business and not sniffing into others people business like a dog and bite if i don't like their business.

Otherwise the chances the dog getting put down is very likely.

It's as simple as that mate.

Sure the world isn't perfect, but i am not in a position of some high authority to tell people on how they should live their lives.

Maybe you are...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Doujutsu
With all the mass media and secular education they should have been able to figure it out by now? No?

Well look at you. With all the truth being shown to you and all the mass media and secular education going on .. YOU still don't get it .. you still defend people stoning women to death for being accused of adultry. Now multiply that a thousand fold and that's what it's like in a cult. All encompassing .. all consuming .. takes over every aspect of your life. Read up on cults. Read up on basic psychology - skinner for example.

Yes i get get fact that Sharia law isn't pretty but i dno't want to go and tell a group of people how they should live their lives when 75% of them are happy with it.

If i don't like something, than why should i have the right to change it, destroy it, kill it etc etc.?

reply to post by Doujutsu


I agree with you that we shouldn't get into their business.

I could care less if they killed each other in their own country. Let them eradicate themselves with stupidity and ignorance.

The thing we should watch out for mate is when they come over here and try to impose this crap on us.

Originally posted by Doujutsu


Let them do as they want and we should mind our own business.

I agree.
And they should mind their's.

And what if they gain nuclear weapon technology and start bullying other nations in the region and interfering in their business?
At what point do we make a stand?
Or do we let them go unchecked regardless of the human misery they are causing and spreading.

Because even an elementary understanding and knowledge of human history teaches us that that would be inevitable.

I don't want to see war against Iran, or anyone else for that matter, but simply letting them do as they wish is not an acceptable option.
But I don't know what the answer is.
And that is why I'm not a politician or a diplomat!
Or a cleric of any religion!!

Originally posted by Steam
reply to post by Doujutsu

 

The thing we should watch out for mate is when they come over here and try to impose this crap on us.

Exactly!

We are too busy cleaning up others backyards while ours is getting trashed into a multi-culti PC hellhole.

Let them do as they like in their own nations while we should clean ours up.

All the Pik n Mix is really not working.

Originally posted by Freeborn

Originally posted by Doujutsu

And what if they gain nuclear weapon technology and start bullying other nations in the region and interfering in their business?
At what point do we make a stand?
Or do we let them go unchecked regardless of the human misery they are causing and spreading.

Well Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for decades yet they haven't nuked anyone? Nuclear weapons are a good deterrent as it stops other nations invading each other.I am sure if Iran had nukes, they wouldn't go around nuking everyone without a good reason.

Look at india with it's army 10 times bigger than pakistan and can finish pakistan within a matter of weeks.The only reason india has not done that is because pakistan has a huge stockpile of nukes and is capable of sending it to every corner of india.

We haven't given them a chance yet we are already making assumptions about how they would use their nuclear technology.They know very well that if they decided to use their nukes they will too get annihilated in return.

Regarding Sharia law, if majority of the muslims are happy with hanging homos off cranes and chopping off hands of thieves than we have no moral obligation to change that in anyway except voicing our disgust.

Originally posted by Freeborn

Originally posted by Doujutsu


Let them do as they want and we should mind our own business.

I agree.
And they should mind their's.

And what if they gain nuclear weapon technology and start bullying other nations in the region and interfering in their business?
At what point do we make a stand?
Or do we let them go unchecked regardless of the human misery they are causing and spreading.

Because even an elementary understanding and knowledge of human history teaches us that that would be inevitable.

I don't want to see war against Iran, or anyone else for that matter, but simply letting them do as they wish is not an acceptable option.
But I don't know what the answer is.
And that is why I'm not a politician or a diplomat!
Or a cleric of any religion!!

edit on 7/12/10 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)

You are right

I am surprised when people say that there has been no Muslim country that has invaded another non-Muslim country in recent history.

You want to know why?

Because they CAN"T!!!

They lack the military and diplomatic strength needed to invade another country.

If any Islamic nation became a superpower (highly unlikely) then you bet your @$$ that they would be spreading Sharia law to all corners of the world.

Saying otherwise is being naive and ignorant

Originally posted by littlecloud
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.

Yeah, kill them all, why not? Havent you heard the news? Morals are relative. That means I have right to kill every muslim I see on the spot, claim that it is part of my culture, and call everyone that disagrees with me a bigoted racist.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by littlecloud
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.

Yeah, kill them all, why not? Havent you heard the news? Morals are relative. That means I have right to kill every muslim I see on the spot, claim that it is part of my culture, and call everyone that disagrees with me a bigoted racist.

lol, I see what you did there

second line

reply to post by littlecloud

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

I really hope you are right..

reply to post by Maslo


Me too, I have met alot of muslims who dont have this idea of stoning women, but then again they dont live there so the influences arent as strong.
But then again the media had us believe that they were turban wearing terrorists for a small amount of time, so who really knows.

Sorry if you were being funny before. Didnt pick up on it.

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

Absolutely.

I have no wish to see adulterers stoned in Britain, and there is no chance of this ever becoming a reality.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

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

Absolutely.

I have no wish to see adulterers stoned in Britain, and there is no chance of this ever becoming a reality.

Our population is breeding at below replacement levels, thiers is breeding at 3.9 children per female - they will have majority status in many cities soon and eventualy the whole nation - they will of course vote for sharia law!

This is an inevitability - barring of course a Euro-wide civil war (more likely).

Originally posted by Maslo
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.

Please take that ''our'' and ''we'' away, because your narrow-minded comments aren't applicable to me.

It's not my fault that you are incapable of accepting a viewpoint based upon common sense and logic.

Originally posted by Maslo
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.

Precisely. There is no absolute moral authority, so why would any logical and sane person, adopt a ''God complex'', and decree that something is ''wrong'' or ''right'' ?

There's no logic or sense in your comments.

Originally posted by Maslo
We can make laws against migration based on their initial location, we dont need to check thoughts in their heads.

Wouldn't that violate your precious ''human rights'' ?

Originally posted by Maslo
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.

There is no logical way that such a conclusion could be accurately reached.

Are you insane in the brain ?

Originally posted by Maslo
Just as you can not allow a person incompatible with your morals into your house.

Sorry, I have to stop at this logical fallacy.

The country/house analogy is tired and illogical.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

I have no wish to see adulterers stoned in Britain, and there is no chance of this ever becoming a reality.

With current immigration levels and muslim reproduction rates compared to domestic population, I would not be so sure. It might take 100-150 years or more to reach such influence, not 30-50 like some alarmist youtube documents claim, but I would not be so sure. It will may even happen in Europe if we continue with current immigration and unlimited child benefits policy (or with lack of reproduction control).

reply to post by Doujutsu

If i don't like something, than why should i have the right to change it, destroy it, kill it etc etc.?

Exactly. Why should anyone have the right to kill two lovers having consentual sex among themselves, or a person that changed his/her religion.. ..oh wait! Sorry, what I said was probably racist towards muslims. Nevermind, I apologize, and you should apologize for your bigotry, too!

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Precisely. There is no absolute moral authority, so why would any logical and sane person, adopt a ''God complex'', and decree that something is ''wrong'' or ''right'' ?

Because its either that or having no morals (allowing everything and agreeing with everything). That just wont work for the benefit of our civilization, unless you want to go back into the stone age, and especially it wont work against a culture that does not share the same stance and considers their morals absolute and god-given.

Wouldn't that violate your precious ''human rights'' ?

No, moving into area that is restricted by law for you is not a basic human right. Just as you are not breaking a burglars basic human rights by locking your house.

There is no logical way that such a conclusion could be accurately reached. Are you insane in the brain ?

How so? Simple logic:
1. we dont want x to be happening, or being promoted in our country
2. people from location y are very likely wanting to do or promote x
3. therefore we have a right to "lock our house" for them

Its preventive law, based on higher probability of unwanted behaviour, like thousands of other preventive laws and regulations.

The country/house analogy is tired and illogical.

What exactly is illogical about it? Its perfectly fitting.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by jjkenobi
When's the last time a man was stoned for adultery? The only times I read about it a woman bites the dust.

If "He" is married and has an affair "She" being single or married, She threatened the sanctity of his marriage. If "she" was married and "He" was single or married "She" violated her vows.

Makes perfect sense to me...
He's the victim. She was the cause.

edit on 6-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Men can have multiple wives ...and temporary (a few hours even) wives ...so basically they can't commit adultery unless they find a woman already married to another man - hmm wonder if they both get stoned then?

reply to post by Mdv2


These laws are truly barbaric. Almost as barbaric as the US federal government invading Iraq and killing 200,000 civilians in the process, but not quite. The US government would have been *much* more kind had they stoned 5,000 Americans to death for adultery, instead of killing 200,000 Iraqis for oil contracts for their favorite corporations.