Meanwhile in the depths of Africa

[JonnyBGood]

Another triumph for the Nigerian legal system

[Sunday8pm]

I'm somehow not opposed to human atrocities in countries that aren't providing much enviromental benefit to the world.

Nigeria ranks up there with America imo...

p.s. if you were told something you could do was punsihable by death and you still did it, regardless of who get's caught and who doesn't you are still a ****ing twat for doing it in the first place.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

I'm somehow not opposed to human atrocities in countries that aren't providing much enviromental benefit to the world.

I'm going through my allotted quota of at a rate of knots today.


PS Unless you valued your freedom to perform that action higher than your life.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm going through my allotted quota of at a rate of knots today.


PS Unless you valued your freedom to perform that action higher than your life.

thinking with your genitalia is definately a great sign of evolution.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

thinking with your genitalia is definately a great sign of evolution.

Are you implying that a black woman who wanted to have sex outside of wedlock is somehow subhuman? This is really a triumph of rationality.

[Sunday8pm]

If you insist that they value it more than their life.

p.s. Let's face it if they were in enforced marriages and they were having affairs with people they loved and would rather to have loved and died than to of never loved at all then yah I feel no sympathy really cause that's how they wanted to die anyway. If it wasn't for that then yah they obviously are sub-human at least on the mental ability level. Neither situation begs sympathy from me, perhaps it's cause I had to read Romeo and Juliet almost 4 years running thanks to a wonderful English Cirriculum.

[JonnyBGood]

I'm not responding to this. It may be half two and the morning and I may be really bored but sometimes you just can't feed the troll anymore

[Sunday8pm]

I'm not trolling or baiting, my ps genuinely explains my feelings on this, I'm writing it honest and dead pan and the way I see it.

Perhaps it's a dimension of the Human Character that you refuse to accept but it's there.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

thinking with your genitalia is definately a great sign of evolution.

Er, yes?

[LHC]

If I threatened to shoot somebody if they say hello to me, and then they do it, I'd be wrong to not shoot them since I warned them about it.

Right?

[Leshy]

It's not as much that you'd be not wrong, but that they'd be a ****ing twat. According to SundayLaw2004.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by LHC

If I threatened to shoot somebody if they say hello to me, and then they do it, I'd be wrong to not shoot them since I warned them about it.

Right?

Only if your nation of birthright that you were both residing at the time had passed those circumstances in the form of an law that permitted a argumentative reluctant capitalist to create ridiculous hypothetical situations for reasons of one upmanship.

Oh wait sorry I meant you haven't taken this in the correct Context, we are talking about sharia law, not simon ****ing says.

We live in a world that is very radically different from the one we imagine, furthermore we are talking about people acting against Laws that govern their country, you do not govern anything in that situation, make a better hypothetical situation.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Leshy

It's not as much that you'd be not wrong, but that they'd be a ****ing twat. According to SundayLaw2004.

Or you'd be on the blindly wrong just to one up sunday cause I don't like him bandwagon cause hey all the cool kids do it.

If you dont' like an argument taht's fine, if you don't like the user that creates the argument it doesn't make it fine to suddenly troll the user that is having the argument.

Lurk more... or summit.

[JonnyBGood]

Basically we've come to a rather fundamental difference of opinion with sunday (assuming he's not trolling which at this point would just be irritating). As far as I can tell he is of the belief that someone who breaks an unjust law, when they are aware of this law, is a twat and subhuman. The first characteristic, namely that of being a twat, is rather difficult to define and as such I'll avoid that as subjective categorisation. The second characteristic, that of being subhuman, is supposedly due to the fact that she knew that she might possibly be punished for having sex outside of wedlock but went ahead with this anyways. First of all it appears that sunday considers this woman to be subhuman because there was a chance of here being killed. Seeing as nobody has ever actually been killed in Nigeria under this law (all sentences have been overturned on appeals) and that it is rather doubtful that anywhere near a significant minority of sex outside of wedlock cases are prosecuted it seems that the chances of here actually being killed are rather low. And as we all don't consider people who walk across the road to deserve to die, hay you could be knocked down by a speeding motorist, I think we can consider this aspect of the argument adequately dismissed.

This has somewhat neatly avoided the more moral point though. Does someone who knowingly breaks a law where this is a chance, no matter how slim, of death deserve death (or at the very least some sort of punishment). Undoubtedly this person has displayed rather poor judgement skills if the goal of their life is to survive for as long as possible. However goals are chosen by individuals. It seems rather unlikely that she sat down and listed the pros and cons of having this affair, only deciding by inserting her results into a complex "meaning of life" formula. I'd suggest it's rather more probable that she was far more "caught up in the moment" and never stopped to consider the rather remote chance of being killed for her actions. It seems that she considered her freedom to act in this area of higher value than her life.

Does she deserve to die, or be punished for this? Personally my view of the legal system is that it should be one of equal reciprocation, if you harm another individual or their property you should be punished in a reasonable and "equal" fashion for your transgressions. Does someone who had sex outside of wedlock deserve to be punished? No, as this action, in itself, does not harm another person. I have no idea why someone deserves to be punished for breaking an unjust law. The attitude that they do deserve punishment isn't very helpful in determing a fair and just code of law. Surely we should decide on what principles we want to base our legal system. The idea that breaking the law means you deserve punishment doesn't help us determine what the law should be. In conclusion I find sunday's argument to be unproductive and rather pointless.

[Boogster]

It sucks, but it isn't really the Nigerian legal system that is most at fault.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

It sucks, but it isn't really the Nigerian legal system that is most at fault.

Would you mind elaborating on who, in your considered opinion, is most to blame?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Would you mind elaborating on who, in your considered opinion, is most to blame?

Those who invented Sharia Law.

[JonnyBGood]

Surely those who actually use it are more to blame? If someone came up with the idea of killing every black person between the ages of 18-25 he wouldn't be as much to blame as the person who actually went around and killed them all.

[Dante Hicks]

In my opinion, people have an obligation to struggle against morally flawed laws. One of the key ways to achieve this is to disobey them. Someone who disobeys a bad law is often heroic.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

In my opinion, people have an obligation to struggle against morally flawed laws. One of the key ways to achieve this is to disobey them. Someone who disobeys a bad law is often heroic.

Almost randian *sniff*

[Tactitus]

One of the many problems with draconian legal systems (like Sharia) is that the laws are often enforced arbitrarily. When you dig into these death-sentence-for-adultery cases, you often find the woman was particularily outspoken or the husband had some political/religious influence. The laws rarely get applied to everyone since the penalties are so severe and the legal system gets misused for personal vendettas and other mischief and is corrupted by bribery and blackmail.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

In my opinion, people have an obligation to struggle against morally flawed laws. One of the key ways to achieve this is to disobey them. Someone who disobeys a bad law is often heroic.

If you choose civil disobedience then I'm sure you accept the consequences and I'm sure others harping for sympathy over their punishment can be derided by those who do not believe in civil disobedience.

There's two sides to everything, while I understand you are all for challenging flawed law systems, if you are suddenly held culpable for your actions I find whatever punishment is decreed by your system was the just consequence, I hate matyrdom, it brings out the stupid people who can't act out the civil disobedience on the level they preach about out like they are all one big unit in this world watching out for each other, which they aren't.

I doubt anyone who posts there disgust in this thread will so much as even bother their local MP to bring it up in parliament and that's where it really honestly ends.

They've just ended up a decent page filler in a newspaper.

[Nusselt]

IIRC the 'federal courts' or their equivalent have over turned the death sentences, im all for pointing out the idiocy (to me) of the laws but some qualification would have been helpful, i don't know much about west africa but i do know that the military only let go of power in '99. The imposition of democracy on factions that were previously united against a common enemy is that they tend to vigorously and narrowly persue their own ideologies, no matter how apparently outdated.

I think its laudable that nigeria is going in the right direction, 10 years ago algeria was as if not more ****ed up. They'll be fine.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Does someone who had sex outside of wedlock deserve to be punished? No, as this action, in itself, does not harm another person.

So you think there are no victims eh?!

What if the woman has a kid by a guy she isn't married to and the guy she is married to raises the kid as his own without realising it isnt.

There's alot of time and money invested in raising a kid.

As such surely this counts (at the very least) as theft and possibly (/probably) mental cruelty (ie when the guy eventually finds out the kid isn't ... and all it takes is one heated row 5/10/20 years down the line).

****

[Kurashima]

Way down deep in de middle of de congo
De lion picked the passion fruit
De Marmoset de mango

In de Jungle
De might Jungle
De Lion Sleeps tonight
A-woooooooooooooooo
Ow Ow Ow , Wee-uhm-bum-ba-way

(Nigeria is a mess. I have a personal hatred for all things Nigerian (except Jay Jay Okocha) because of the sheer volume of work that 419 fraudsters generate for me. I mean, seriously, how the **** do you afford a computer in that godforsaken land if all you do is commit fraud which is ridiculously easy to trace? Hence anything relating to Nigeria ill assume is people in jungles singing silly songs)

[Dace]

Nigeria also generates alot of work for the passport office fraud squad (damn those darkies ::shakesfist:).

[Sunday8pm]

Let's not forget they push the prices of oil up with all the hostage taking they used to do before Iraq got in on the act.

[Dace]

Its not so much the hostage taking its more the "rebels" threatening to "blow shit up" (i think)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

If you choose civil disobedience then I'm sure you accept the consequences and I'm sure others harping for sympathy over their punishment can be derided by those who do not believe in civil disobedience.

Who is asking for sympathy? I'd imagine JBG posted this thread so people could be disgusted with the behaviour of these barbarian blacks, not because he wanted anyone to feel sorry for the woman in question. That's how most of these threads go. The only person harping on about sympathy is you.

[Sunday8pm]

Disgust and Sympathy go hand in hand imo.

I feel indifferent to it, if I felt sympathy for the situation then maybe it'd raise feelings of disgust but it doesn't.

[TheBerk]

and why has noone mentioned the fact that the men (the ones the woman committed adutlery with) have got off scott free...... surely this is the biggest injustice / lack of equal rights that has been commited here... or is it just me being drunk and not noticing someone mentioning it...

[Dante Hicks]

Well obviously the whole thing is disgusting.

But personally I'd say the biggest injustice is the woman being sentenced to death, not the inequality in sentencing (although that's obviously bad too). It's not like if they executed the man it'd be OK is it?

Actually I was wrong in my previous post - the point of these threads is not to incite disgust, it's to reassert feelings of white European superiority over these savages.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by TheBerk

and why has noone mentioned the fact that the men (the ones the woman committed adutlery with) have got off scott free...... surely this is the biggest injustice / lack of equal rights that has been commited here... or is it just me being drunk and not noticing someone mentioning it...

Because we are more than used now to seeing the inequalities of the Sharia Law, and its degradation and mistreatment of women. Call me Cynical, but the barbarians will continue to act like this until strong minded individuals within the muslim communities start to say "This is wrong". Which will never happen.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Which will never happen.

Never is a rather fantastically long period of time.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Never is a rather fantastically long period of time.

For a religion thats been around longer almost 1500 years, to have failed to adapt in any way shape or form in its entire life, still living by tenets which are open to interpretation in any way shape or form by uneducated fanatics, really tells me that the religion of Islam is in dire need of a shake up from the very top.

However every time a new leader is appointed in a predominantly muslim country, they just follow the tradition "Because that is how it was written and that is how it has always been done".

Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. And unfortunately, in the humble opinion of this board poster, one of the most backward for introverted. Its growth is NOT good for the world as a whole and will inevitably lead to further suspicion, hatred and inevitable loss of life.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

For a religion thats been around longer almost 1500 years, to have failed to adapt in any way shape or form in its entire life, still living by tenets which are open to interpretation in any way shape or form by uneducated fanatics, really tells me that the religion of Islam is in dire need of a shake up from the very top.

Yeah, Islam is shit, no question. But it's revival is a relatively modern phenemon and it's political importance has grown mainly as a result of a decline of secular (sometimes leftist) nationalism and the foriegn policy of the United States & Europe.

But my point was that I don't think you can use words like "never". I'm sure someone in Europe during the 1500s would have been pretty depressed with the state of Christianity but 500 years later and the back of "strong" Christianity has largely been broken in Europe (not the US).

It may take another 500 years but Islam will go where it belongs, into the dustbin of history.

[Sunday8pm]

So basically you are saying every dog has its day... shit that means scientology... noooo!!!!!

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Surely those who actually use it are more to blame? If someone came up with the idea of killing every black person between the ages of 18-25 he wouldn't be as much to blame as the person who actually went around and killed them all.

My point is fairly obvious: the killers were following Sharia Law. If there was no such thing, they would not be following it.
Of course, they might still kill her, but have never suggested otherwise. In this case, Sharia Law is the root of the wrongdoing - and it's creator the most insidious perpetrator.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, Islam is shit, no question. But it's revival is a relatively modern phenemon and it's political importance has grown mainly as a result of a decline of secular (sometimes leftist) nationalism and the foriegn policy of the United States & Europe.

But my point was that I don't think you can use words like "never". I'm sure someone in Europe during the 1500s would have been pretty depressed with the state of Christianity but 500 years later and the back of "strong" Christianity has largely been broken in Europe (not the US).

It may take another 500 years but Islam will go where it belongs, into the dustbin of history.

We could quibble over the actual state of Christianity during the 1500s at this point...

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Boogster

We could quibble over the actual state of Christianity during the 1500s at this point...

The Reformation would like a word with you.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

The Reformation would like a word with you.

I was going to say that

But Boogster, aren't you a protestant? If so, why do you think the reformation was necessary?

[Sunday8pm]

Nothing was ever neccessary, hypocrisy is rife and all anyone ever cares about in the greater politics and religions in the world is getting one upmanship on the others.

For example Knox's reasons during the reformation also incorporated idol worshipping as one of the peeves we must purge, I beg of anyone who goes to glasgow to go visit the necropolis and check where Knox is buried... I have a rather ironic picture involving my gf and a friend of her's doing something that involved being on their knee's in front of it...

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

We could quibble over the actual state of Christianity during the 1500s at this point...

On what, specifically?

[Kurashima]

Editors Note : Some may mention the split between Sunni & Shi'ite muslims. However the core beliefs and actions of the senior religious figures in both of these sections have not changed. The Sunni are believed to be less militant and more western leaning, but their hatred to Judaism and to a lesser extent Christianity is no less than their Shi'ite brothers.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

The Sunni are believed to be less militant and more western leaning, but their hatred to Judaism and to a lesser extent Christianity is no less than their Shi'ite brothers.

Wtf.

Sunnis are widely diverse in their thinking on just about every issue going. You get everything ranging to Wahhabism to Hanafism; from Saudi Arabia to Turkey.

That's a bit of an awfully retarded generalisation, even as far as generalisations go.

Sunnis make up the vast majority of Muslims, anyway, so it's essentially something close to saying "All Muslims hate Jews." or "All Catholics hate Methodists." or whatever.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

My point is fairly obvious: the killers were following Sharia Law. If there was no such thing, they would not be following it.
Of course, they might still kill her, but have never suggested otherwise. In this case, Sharia Law is the root of the wrongdoing - and it's creator the most insidious perpetrator.

Fair enough. It's a rather pointless distinction with almost zero impact on real life though.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Who is asking for sympathy? I'd imagine JBG posted this thread so people could be disgusted with the behaviour of these barbarian blacks, not because he wanted anyone to feel sorry for the woman in question. That's how most of these threads go. The only person harping on about sympathy is you.

Actually I posted this thread so we could accuse Sharia law of discriminatory practices (seeing as we've established long ago that they're all dirty savages).

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Phang

The Reformation would like a word with you.

I am not contesting that religion made an incredible impact on medieval society, merely that Christianity, as practiced by many, wasn't how it should be - that Christianity was less a belief, and more a power struggle.
Dante made a negatively charged comparison between the strength of medieval Christianity and today's, and I am merely suggesting that Christianity was no 'stronger' then - in terms of sincere belief, and adherence to that belief - than it is now.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Dante made a negatively charged comparison between the strength of medieval Christianity and today's, and I am merely suggesting that Christianity was no 'stronger' then - in terms of sincere belief, and adherence to that belief - than it is now.

Why?

What on earth would you base this on? Every single indicator suggests that faith was both more widespread and more devoutly held to than today. Obviously, some people (Particularly rulers.) did only use religion convieniently. But to claim that somehow there is a parity between the social status religion now and then is frankly bizzare.

If the entirety of Medieval society was only simply using faith as some kind of opportunistic socio-political tool for advancement, then it was pretty bloody elabourate and unneccesary performance.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why?

What on earth would you base this on? Every single indicator suggests that faith was both more widespread and more devoutly held to than today. Obviously, some people (Particularly rulers.) did only use religion convieniently. But to claim that somehow there is a parity between the social status religion now and then is frankly bizzare.

If the entirety of Medieval society was only simply using faith as some kind of opportunistic socio-political tool for advancement, then it was pretty bloody elabourate and unneccesary performance.

Perhaps you are right, in a sense. However, even if belief was sometimes sincere, it was certainly not informed, nor adhered to particularly well. Ordinary people did not read the Bible. I doubt many led the sort of life laid out in the Bible.

An thought just occured to me: Could the Inquisition happen today?
Might be interesting to think about.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

nor adhered to particularly well.

Depends what you mean by 'adhered to'. I'd say it was. Certainly, much, much more so than today. The two periods are not even comparable.

Even when people did not adheer to it, society and the Church insisted that they did adheer, with personal penalties (Often violent.) for non-compliance.

Originally Posted by Boogster

Ordinary people did not read the Bible. I doubt many led the sort of life laid out in the Bible.

What are you saying? That because peasants didn't go around discussing Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle, religion had no bearing on them?

Originally Posted by Boogster

An thought just occured to me: Could the Inquisition happen today?

No. Not in the form it had historically.