spot;1331005 wrote: It's entirely arguable that Saudi law offers women far greater safety and security than those living in any Western jurisdiction. You're being selective in claiming no voice, no rights, no care, to the extent of being obviously inaccurate. You'd make your points far more effectively if you stuck to claims which couldn't be so easily refuted. Do ask if you'd like examples.
Ya, examples would be nice.
Well maybe you’re right to an extent.
Take away any woman’s rights,
don’t allow them to vote
Do not allow them to be educated
Don’t allow them to be in public without full body coverage and wear a Burqa.
Keep them inside and way from the public
and yes, chances are they will be safe.
Free? no,
safe? maybe
Unless they do something wrong, then in which case you drag them out into the street and stone them to death.
But hey, who are we to say anything when our criminals have the right to free legal counsel, a fair trial, re-habilitation and bail. Unless in some cases, in some places, where the crime is so hideous and pre-meditated that they can still be subjected to the death penalty.
But according to you, that is just as bad or not worse that burying a woman up to her elbows in sand, then bashing her head repeatedly with rocks until she is dead.
Maybe you would like to live there!
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1331166 wrote: Ya, examples would be nice.
Well maybe you’re right to an extent.
Take away any woman’s rights,
don’t allow them to vote
Do not allow them to be educated
Don’t allow them to be in public without full body coverage and wear a Burqa.
Keep them inside and way from the public
and yes, chances are they will be safe.
Free? no,
safe? maybe
Unless they do something wrong, then in which case you drag them out into the street and stone them to death.
But hey, who are we to say anything when our criminals have the right to free legal counsel, a fair trial, re-habilitation and bail. Unless in some cases, in some places, where the crime is so hideous and pre-meditated that they can still be subjected to the death penalty.
But according to you, that is just as bad or not worse that burying a woman up to her elbows in sand, then bashing her head repeatedly with rocks until she is dead.
Maybe you would like to live there!
Maybe you'd like to explain why *you* should be allowed to dictate the moral code *they* should live by?
Well maybe you’re right to an extent.
Take away any woman’s rights,
don’t allow them to vote
Do not allow them to be educated
Don’t allow them to be in public without full body coverage and wear a Burqa.
Keep them inside and way from the public
and yes, chances are they will be safe.
Free? no,
safe? maybe
Unless they do something wrong, then in which case you drag them out into the street and stone them to death.
But hey, who are we to say anything when our criminals have the right to free legal counsel, a fair trial, re-habilitation and bail. Unless in some cases, in some places, where the crime is so hideous and pre-meditated that they can still be subjected to the death penalty.
But according to you, that is just as bad or not worse that burying a woman up to her elbows in sand, then bashing her head repeatedly with rocks until she is dead.
Maybe you would like to live there!
Maybe you'd like to explain why *you* should be allowed to dictate the moral code *they* should live by?
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Bryn Mawr;1331210 wrote: Maybe you'd like to explain why *you* should be allowed to dictate the moral code *they* should live by?
I'll take a stab at that!
We have to uphold a certain moral code because we are human beings who value life. And we have one: it's called "Universal Human Rights." The thing that we, as humanity, have agreed must be the minimum standards that a country should adhere to.
Why should we dictate their minimum "moral standards?" Because before we had that unified moral code, when we didn't care what other countries did... we witnessed the Holocaust. Without a worldwide moral code, that can and will happen again.
The cruelly vicious acts of stoning and amputation are just as heinous and outside of common moral standards.
I'll take a stab at that!
We have to uphold a certain moral code because we are human beings who value life. And we have one: it's called "Universal Human Rights." The thing that we, as humanity, have agreed must be the minimum standards that a country should adhere to.
Why should we dictate their minimum "moral standards?" Because before we had that unified moral code, when we didn't care what other countries did... we witnessed the Holocaust. Without a worldwide moral code, that can and will happen again.
The cruelly vicious acts of stoning and amputation are just as heinous and outside of common moral standards.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Saint_;1331223 wrote: I'll take a stab at that!
We have to uphold a certain moral code because we are human beings who value life. And we have one: it's called "Universal Human Rights." The thing that we, as humanity, have agreed must be the minimum standards that a country should adhere to.
Why should we dictate their minimum "moral standards?" Because before we had that unified moral code, when we didn't care what other countries did... we witnessed the Holocaust. Without a worldwide moral code, that can and will happen again.
The cruelly vicious acts of stoning and amputation are just as heinous and outside of common moral standards.
There seem to be various things you're failing to grasp.
Firstly you need to accept that there's disagreement on your view of what is and what isn't a moral standard. You have a legitimate opinion but it's not absolute. There are no absolutes. History is full of people thinking theirs was the only way and in general they were bigoted fanatics - the Jesuits spring to mind, as do the Puritans and the Taliban.
Secondly you need to dissociate yourself from speaking as a citizen of the USA because "we are human beings who value life" is plain laughable in the light of the last decade when spoken from that standpoint. US administrations have shown time and again that they consist of murderous thugs with the most disgusting disregard for ethical values, preferring the projection of power and a woeful disregard for human happiness either domestically or abroad.
By all means pursue moral standards on a worldwide scale but not through the discredited self-centered route of American Imperialism. There are representative bodies like the United Nations which can and will speak with authority and credibility. The USA has entirely lost that right and I, for one, don't see how it can ever purge its guilt and re-establish its good name. The sooner it loses its permanent seat on the Security Council the better, it's stood in the way of the peaceful resolution of international disagreements for too long.
We have to uphold a certain moral code because we are human beings who value life. And we have one: it's called "Universal Human Rights." The thing that we, as humanity, have agreed must be the minimum standards that a country should adhere to.
Why should we dictate their minimum "moral standards?" Because before we had that unified moral code, when we didn't care what other countries did... we witnessed the Holocaust. Without a worldwide moral code, that can and will happen again.
The cruelly vicious acts of stoning and amputation are just as heinous and outside of common moral standards.
There seem to be various things you're failing to grasp.
Firstly you need to accept that there's disagreement on your view of what is and what isn't a moral standard. You have a legitimate opinion but it's not absolute. There are no absolutes. History is full of people thinking theirs was the only way and in general they were bigoted fanatics - the Jesuits spring to mind, as do the Puritans and the Taliban.
Secondly you need to dissociate yourself from speaking as a citizen of the USA because "we are human beings who value life" is plain laughable in the light of the last decade when spoken from that standpoint. US administrations have shown time and again that they consist of murderous thugs with the most disgusting disregard for ethical values, preferring the projection of power and a woeful disregard for human happiness either domestically or abroad.
By all means pursue moral standards on a worldwide scale but not through the discredited self-centered route of American Imperialism. There are representative bodies like the United Nations which can and will speak with authority and credibility. The USA has entirely lost that right and I, for one, don't see how it can ever purge its guilt and re-establish its good name. The sooner it loses its permanent seat on the Security Council the better, it's stood in the way of the peaceful resolution of international disagreements for too long.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
spot;1331231 wrote: There seem to be various things you're failing to grasp.
Firstly you need to accept that there's disagreement on your view of what is and what isn't a moral standard. You have a legitimate opinion but it's not absolute. There are no absolutes.
Absolutely right, and I'm fine with a Universal Moral Code that grows and adjusts, as long as it takes into account the basics. The Geneva Conventions were a good beginning,but obviously we need to expand those.
Secondly you need to dissociate yourself from speaking as a citizen of the USA because "we are human beings who value life" is plain laughable in the light of the last decade when spoken from that standpoint.
Right again, I wasn't being clear enough when I said "We." I literally meant exactly what you stated, a consensus of the majority of the people of Earth. I think most of the average people would agree that stoning and amputation is needlessly cruel.
There are representative bodies like the United Nations which can and will speak with authority and credibility. The USA has entirely lost that right and I, for one, don't see how it can ever purge its guilt and re-establish its good name. The sooner it loses its permanent seat on the Security Council the better, it's stood in the way of the peaceful resolution of international disagreements for too long.
I agree that the United nations is a good start, but I disagree that America can't undo past mistakes. It's what we're best at! (See: The Civil War.)
Firstly you need to accept that there's disagreement on your view of what is and what isn't a moral standard. You have a legitimate opinion but it's not absolute. There are no absolutes.
Absolutely right, and I'm fine with a Universal Moral Code that grows and adjusts, as long as it takes into account the basics. The Geneva Conventions were a good beginning,but obviously we need to expand those.
Secondly you need to dissociate yourself from speaking as a citizen of the USA because "we are human beings who value life" is plain laughable in the light of the last decade when spoken from that standpoint.
Right again, I wasn't being clear enough when I said "We." I literally meant exactly what you stated, a consensus of the majority of the people of Earth. I think most of the average people would agree that stoning and amputation is needlessly cruel.
There are representative bodies like the United Nations which can and will speak with authority and credibility. The USA has entirely lost that right and I, for one, don't see how it can ever purge its guilt and re-establish its good name. The sooner it loses its permanent seat on the Security Council the better, it's stood in the way of the peaceful resolution of international disagreements for too long.
I agree that the United nations is a good start, but I disagree that America can't undo past mistakes. It's what we're best at! (See: The Civil War.)
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Saint_;1331237 wrote: I disagree that America can't undo past mistakes. It's what we're best at! (See: The Civil War.)And that took how long, before the consequent Jim Crow rules were finally tackled? A hundred years? I don't think we should hold our breath.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Saint_;1331237 wrote: I think most of the average people would agree that stoning and amputation is needlessly cruel.I'm quite sure they would, worldwide. I'm fairly sure a properly conducted secret ballot of all adults in Saudi Arabia would demonstrate that there's mass support for the legal system and sentencing policy they live under, too, and that it would be a majority both for the men and for the women. I may be wrong, of course, but I doubt whether I am.
Before you can strip them of their right to conduct their own affairs on a national basis, you have to put a working system of world governance in place to which they elect representatives. It's a cart and a horse and that's the only valid sequence. Until then, stay out of their national process and let them evolve it their own way.
Before you can strip them of their right to conduct their own affairs on a national basis, you have to put a working system of world governance in place to which they elect representatives. It's a cart and a horse and that's the only valid sequence. Until then, stay out of their national process and let them evolve it their own way.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
suppose I'm from U.K and I'm going to U.S.A for business, automatically once I get In Unites States every action that I do is under their law and I should read their laws before I do anything that I'm not sure about..
similarly, those who does not want to be under Islamic law they just can go out side the country and get another nationality..
every single human being has a brain and can use It..
this is for "spot" : when I wrote this example, I meant normal countries not terrorist country like USA.
similarly, those who does not want to be under Islamic law they just can go out side the country and get another nationality..
every single human being has a brain and can use It..
this is for "spot" : when I wrote this example, I meant normal countries not terrorist country like USA.
I miss you Odie
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Obama ! Free Homaidan
spot: You seem to be saying we (ie humanity) can never be better than our past. I disagree. History suggests we can be. Not that we will, but that we can be.
The English and the Scots no longer kill eachother on a regular basis. Occasionally we even speak civilly to eachother.
There is hope.
The English and the Scots no longer kill eachother on a regular basis. Occasionally we even speak civilly to eachother.
There is hope.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Obama ! Free Homaidan
for those of you who keep saying where is the justice in the country that I live in:
well, stoning may happened once a year ore once in two years , I don't know how much time every year,. However, American government is supporting Israel which kills people every single day In Palestine, what do you call that?? Is It OK with you???
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
note: when I say USA is terrorist county, I mean the government not all the residents..
well, stoning may happened once a year ore once in two years , I don't know how much time every year,. However, American government is supporting Israel which kills people every single day In Palestine, what do you call that?? Is It OK with you???
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
note: when I say USA is terrorist county, I mean the government not all the residents..
I miss you Odie
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Obama ! Free Homaidan
I think stoning or lethal injection are both barbaric. Stoning is worse because ...I want to know who does the stoning. What sort of vicious evil bastards do that? Could you?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Al-Turki was sentenced to 28 years in prison on twelve felony counts of false imprisonment, unlawful sexual contact, theft and criminal extortion
from what i have read he sexually assulted his Indonesian house maid and imprisioned her (my bold)
MAS: Is this legal in Saudi Arabia?
from what i have read he sexually assulted his Indonesian house maid and imprisioned her (my bold)
MAS: Is this legal in Saudi Arabia?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1331347 wrote: for those of you who keep saying where is the justice in the country that I live in:
well, stoning may happened once a year ore once in two years , I don't know how much time every year,. However, American government is supporting Israel which kills people every single day In Palestine, what do you call that?? Is It OK with you???
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
note: when I say USA is terrorist county, I mean the government not all the residents..
M.A.S. you seem to have forgotten the subject of the thread and turned it nicely into a "isnt America evil ?" You still havent sufficiently explained why you think this man should be let free and why you think he hasnt had a fair trial.
well, stoning may happened once a year ore once in two years , I don't know how much time every year,. However, American government is supporting Israel which kills people every single day In Palestine, what do you call that?? Is It OK with you???
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
note: when I say USA is terrorist county, I mean the government not all the residents..
M.A.S. you seem to have forgotten the subject of the thread and turned it nicely into a "isnt America evil ?" You still havent sufficiently explained why you think this man should be let free and why you think he hasnt had a fair trial.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1331347 wrote:
well, stoning may happened once a year ore once in two years , I don't know how much time every year,. ..
apparently if you add up deaths by stoning, flogging, beheading and hanging you get a figure of 102 for 2009.....alledgedly
Saudi Arabian asylum princess 'feared flogging and stoning' - Telegraph
well, stoning may happened once a year ore once in two years , I don't know how much time every year,. ..
apparently if you add up deaths by stoning, flogging, beheading and hanging you get a figure of 102 for 2009.....alledgedly
Saudi Arabian asylum princess 'feared flogging and stoning' - Telegraph
The dogs philosophy on life. If you cant eat it, hump it or fight it,........ Pee on it and walk away!!
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Flogging isn't a death sentence and it's arguably preferable to imprisonment.
Do you have an issue with beheading as a means of execution and if so, why?
Do you have an issue with beheading as a means of execution and if so, why?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Saint_;1331223 wrote: I'll take a stab at that!
We have to uphold a certain moral code because we are human beings who value life. And we have one: it's called "Universal Human Rights." The thing that we, as humanity, have agreed must be the minimum standards that a country should adhere to.
Why should we dictate their minimum "moral standards?" Because before we had that unified moral code, when we didn't care what other countries did... we witnessed the Holocaust. Without a worldwide moral code, that can and will happen again.
The cruelly vicious acts of stoning and amputation are just as heinous and outside of common moral standards.
There is no such thing as "universal human rights" - where do these rights come from? Who has agreed them?
What you are doing is taking your concept of a moral code and saying that we must adopt it universally or the holocaust will happen again. Firstly, having had a universal moral code would not have stopped the holocaust, after all, the Germans were and are Christians and lived, before the war and since, to the same moral standards are you call universal.
Secondly, how can you declare, without universal agreement, that your particular moral code should be the universal one?
We have to uphold a certain moral code because we are human beings who value life. And we have one: it's called "Universal Human Rights." The thing that we, as humanity, have agreed must be the minimum standards that a country should adhere to.
Why should we dictate their minimum "moral standards?" Because before we had that unified moral code, when we didn't care what other countries did... we witnessed the Holocaust. Without a worldwide moral code, that can and will happen again.
The cruelly vicious acts of stoning and amputation are just as heinous and outside of common moral standards.
There is no such thing as "universal human rights" - where do these rights come from? Who has agreed them?
What you are doing is taking your concept of a moral code and saying that we must adopt it universally or the holocaust will happen again. Firstly, having had a universal moral code would not have stopped the holocaust, after all, the Germans were and are Christians and lived, before the war and since, to the same moral standards are you call universal.
Secondly, how can you declare, without universal agreement, that your particular moral code should be the universal one?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Dec 10th 1948: Declaration by the United Nations of Universal Human Rights. If your country is a member state of the UN, then (as far as I am aware) you have these rights:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1331347 wrote:
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
same as Libya, Yemen,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia,iran,old Iraq,Lebanon,Syria and countless other muslim countries who have or do condone and support terrorism then
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
same as Libya, Yemen,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia,iran,old Iraq,Lebanon,Syria and countless other muslim countries who have or do condone and support terrorism then
The dogs philosophy on life. If you cant eat it, hump it or fight it,........ Pee on it and walk away!!
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1331347 wrote:
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
note: when I say USA is terrorist county, I mean the government not all the residents..
Our government is elected to office by the people, so if you believe the USA is a terrorist county, then so are all the residents that voted, electing these officials to office. That is what I see you are saying.
first of all, I don't trust any thing that shows In newspapers..
a friend told me a bout USA:
Your friend told you all about the USA? Where does his expert knowledge come from? Because he says it's so, you believe him? What first hand experience do you have MAS in the USA that backs what your friend tells you is so and you're a believer?
One of the freedom's of being a USA resident is freedom to think for ones self. To listen, to take in or let go of whatever information some people trying putting in ones head and then form ones own opinion about the issues.
If the USA is so bad, what would your country think of you, for posting at an owned and operated american forum?
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
note: when I say USA is terrorist county, I mean the government not all the residents..
Our government is elected to office by the people, so if you believe the USA is a terrorist county, then so are all the residents that voted, electing these officials to office. That is what I see you are saying.
first of all, I don't trust any thing that shows In newspapers..
a friend told me a bout USA:
Your friend told you all about the USA? Where does his expert knowledge come from? Because he says it's so, you believe him? What first hand experience do you have MAS in the USA that backs what your friend tells you is so and you're a believer?
One of the freedom's of being a USA resident is freedom to think for ones self. To listen, to take in or let go of whatever information some people trying putting in ones head and then form ones own opinion about the issues.
If the USA is so bad, what would your country think of you, for posting at an owned and operated american forum?
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Clodhopper;1331380 wrote: Dec 10th 1948: Declaration by the United Nations of Universal Human Rights. If your country is a member state of the UN, then (as far as I am aware) you have these rights:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Thank you, I was unaware of this. Do you know of any country that has implemented it?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Thank you, I was unaware of this. Do you know of any country that has implemented it?
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Bryn Mawr;1331651 wrote: Thank you, I was unaware of this. Do you know of any country that has implemented it?
Please tell me you are being facetious. The words echo down the ages and no, no countrty has ever implemented them. Which I suspect you probably know anyway. The more powerful ignore international law and courts when it suits them. How often have you heard politicians comoplaining that concern fror human rights gets in the way of what they want to do and of course the religious fundamentalist of all stamps who complain the concept of everybody being equal is against their religion and human rights to practice that religion. - from saudi Arabia to the vatican.
Please tell me you are being facetious. The words echo down the ages and no, no countrty has ever implemented them. Which I suspect you probably know anyway. The more powerful ignore international law and courts when it suits them. How often have you heard politicians comoplaining that concern fror human rights gets in the way of what they want to do and of course the religious fundamentalist of all stamps who complain the concept of everybody being equal is against their religion and human rights to practice that religion. - from saudi Arabia to the vatican.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Thank you, I was unaware of this. Do you know of any country that has implemented it?
My impression - and thinking about it this is an assumption so please correct me - is that these are not intended to be Law as such; what is intended is that National and International Law may not contradict these principles. As far as I am aware (and I'm not a lawyer) English and Scottish Law don't contradict them...? (I'm assuming that US, Canadian, Aussie, Kiwi, etc, etc Law also conform to these principles, but I know even less about their law than ours...)
Am I way off the mark here?
My impression - and thinking about it this is an assumption so please correct me - is that these are not intended to be Law as such; what is intended is that National and International Law may not contradict these principles. As far as I am aware (and I'm not a lawyer) English and Scottish Law don't contradict them...? (I'm assuming that US, Canadian, Aussie, Kiwi, etc, etc Law also conform to these principles, but I know even less about their law than ours...)
Am I way off the mark here?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Clodhopper;1331732 wrote: (I'm assuming that US, Canadian, Aussie, Kiwi, etc, etc Law also conform to these principles, but I know even less about their law than ours...)
Am I way off the mark here?
It would be interesting to see US members' reaction to Article 25(1) in that case, and how they interpret the words:Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.The proclamation was made "as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations ... and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance". National progressive measures? Keeping reliable accurate current public national statistics on societal deprivation would be a good start.
Am I way off the mark here?
It would be interesting to see US members' reaction to Article 25(1) in that case, and how they interpret the words:Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.The proclamation was made "as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations ... and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance". National progressive measures? Keeping reliable accurate current public national statistics on societal deprivation would be a good start.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
M.A.S;1331347 wrote: for those of you who keep saying where is the justice in the country that I live in:
well, stoning may happened once a year ore once in two years , I don't know how much time every year,. However, American government is supporting Israel which kills people every single day In Palestine, what do you call that?? Is It OK with you???
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
note: when I say USA is terrorist county, I mean the government not all the residents..
I mean like, who really counts or gives a sh1t, after all, it is only the woman we beat to death with rocks anyway, and no one really care about them anyhow.. don't knock it until you try it!!!
oh ya, it is American bla bla bla bla bla bla....
well, stoning may happened once a year ore once in two years , I don't know how much time every year,. However, American government is supporting Israel which kills people every single day In Palestine, what do you call that?? Is It OK with you???
I still believe that USA is terrorist country :guitarist
note: when I say USA is terrorist county, I mean the government not all the residents..
I mean like, who really counts or gives a sh1t, after all, it is only the woman we beat to death with rocks anyway, and no one really care about them anyhow.. don't knock it until you try it!!!
oh ya, it is American bla bla bla bla bla bla....
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1331762 wrote: I mean like, who really counts or gives a sh1t, after all, it is only the woman we beat to death with rocks anyway, and no one really care about them anyhow.. don't knock it until you try it!!!
oh ya, it is American bla bla bla bla bla bla....
And how many times a year do America invoke judicial murder? Then, who gives a sh!t, they're only scum we've found guilty of immoral conduct and no one really cares about them anyway.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Judicial murder is judicial murder however it is carried out. All you are left to argue about is the moral code used to choose who to murder and there you are both wrong.
oh ya, it is American bla bla bla bla bla bla....
And how many times a year do America invoke judicial murder? Then, who gives a sh!t, they're only scum we've found guilty of immoral conduct and no one really cares about them anyway.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Judicial murder is judicial murder however it is carried out. All you are left to argue about is the moral code used to choose who to murder and there you are both wrong.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
well...heres a few items of how Saudi's treat women
Maid tortured by employer
Filipino Rescued After Working Without Pay for 18 Years
Beaten, Locked Up for Refusing to Be a Maid
2 Indonesian Maids Beaten to Death
gulfnews : Tortured maid in serious condition after amputation of her limbs
Maid beaten, tortured and kicked out
savages
Maid tortured by employer
Filipino Rescued After Working Without Pay for 18 Years
Beaten, Locked Up for Refusing to Be a Maid
2 Indonesian Maids Beaten to Death
gulfnews : Tortured maid in serious condition after amputation of her limbs
Maid beaten, tortured and kicked out
savages
The dogs philosophy on life. If you cant eat it, hump it or fight it,........ Pee on it and walk away!!
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
(/)
(-_-)
(")(")
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Bryn Mawr;1331804 wrote: And how many times a year do America invoke judicial murder? Then, who gives a sh!t, they're only scum we've found guilty of immoral conduct and no one really cares about them anyway.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Judicial murder is judicial murder however it is carried out. All you are left to argue about is the moral code used to choose who to murder and there you are both wrong.
Are you serious?
So you think that a situation where someone commits pre-meditated murder, is found guilty by a jury after going through the court system of a trial with the rights to a defense attorney, with multiple options of appeal, but finally being sentenced to death only when circumstances are such, is the same as a woman who is accused and found guilty of adultery in one trial (if you can call it a trial), being buried up to her elbows in sand and having her head beaten in with rocks are the same thing? (oh, by-the-way, the stones have to be under a certain size so the death is not too fast)
In your world maybe people should just be left to do whatever they want, to whoever they want whenever they want. Why put them in jail at all? We wouldn’t want to offend them.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Judicial murder is judicial murder however it is carried out. All you are left to argue about is the moral code used to choose who to murder and there you are both wrong.
Are you serious?
So you think that a situation where someone commits pre-meditated murder, is found guilty by a jury after going through the court system of a trial with the rights to a defense attorney, with multiple options of appeal, but finally being sentenced to death only when circumstances are such, is the same as a woman who is accused and found guilty of adultery in one trial (if you can call it a trial), being buried up to her elbows in sand and having her head beaten in with rocks are the same thing? (oh, by-the-way, the stones have to be under a certain size so the death is not too fast)
In your world maybe people should just be left to do whatever they want, to whoever they want whenever they want. Why put them in jail at all? We wouldn’t want to offend them.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Judicial murder is still judicial murder whether it is after due process or not. Personally I think a lifetime in prison is a worse punishment and at least there is a chance of release if the wrong one has been convicted. given the number of cases where a convicted murderer has been pardoned and released when new evidence comes to light I don't see how anyone can be comfortable with judicial killing.
When it comes to the treatment of women and children the US is not exactly in a position to take the moral high ground. When there is an outward appearance of a moral society the reality is often very different
More than half the internet child porn comes from the states. Sex trafficking in endemic, you have more people in prison than china and you used to execute more children than any other country - it was only recently in 2005 that a supreme court ruling finally outlawed the practice. Curiously enough the worst states are those where christian value are the strongest.
Off topic, this man is a **** of the first order but maybe fingers need to be pointed at home as well as abroad before you are too condemnatory. Sharia law is not much different from the law of the bible.
When it comes to the treatment of women and children the US is not exactly in a position to take the moral high ground. When there is an outward appearance of a moral society the reality is often very different
More than half the internet child porn comes from the states. Sex trafficking in endemic, you have more people in prison than china and you used to execute more children than any other country - it was only recently in 2005 that a supreme court ruling finally outlawed the practice. Curiously enough the worst states are those where christian value are the strongest.
Off topic, this man is a **** of the first order but maybe fingers need to be pointed at home as well as abroad before you are too condemnatory. Sharia law is not much different from the law of the bible.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
mikeinie;1332094 wrote: Are you serious?
So you think that a situation where someone commits pre-meditated murder, is found guilty by a jury after going through the court system of a trial with the rights to a defense attorney, with multiple options of appeal, but finally being sentenced to death only when circumstances are such, is the same as a woman who is accused and found guilty of adultery in one trial (if you can call it a trial), being buried up to her elbows in sand and having her head beaten in with rocks are the same thing? (oh, by-the-way, the stones have to be under a certain size so the death is not too fast)
In your world maybe people should just be left to do whatever they want, to whoever they want whenever they want. Why put them in jail at all? We wouldn’t want to offend them.
Where, in what I said, is any suggestion that people should be allowed to do whatever they want? Or that I worry about offending them?
Given that there are no such suggestions, why are you putting those concepts into "my world"? They don't exist there and they are your fabrication.
Yes, I am serious - read what I wrote instead of what you imagine I'm thinking.
Judicial murder is wrong for whatever reason it is used. That you do not like the moral reasoning behind stoning in KSA or that M.A.S. does not like the moral reasoning behind the U.S. death penalty is irrelevant, it is murder of a citizen by the state and it is wrong.
If a person has broken the laws of your country then lock him up. It that person continues to be a danger to the people of that country then throw away the key but murder is murder whether carried out by a person or by the person of the state.
You might argue that an adulteress is not a danger to the people of KSA - M.A.S. might argue that the danger is a moral one and more dangerous than the physical danger represented by a violent prisoner. Fine, argue away - someone might actually change someone else's mind eventually but in the meantime, both countries should stop the killing.
So you think that a situation where someone commits pre-meditated murder, is found guilty by a jury after going through the court system of a trial with the rights to a defense attorney, with multiple options of appeal, but finally being sentenced to death only when circumstances are such, is the same as a woman who is accused and found guilty of adultery in one trial (if you can call it a trial), being buried up to her elbows in sand and having her head beaten in with rocks are the same thing? (oh, by-the-way, the stones have to be under a certain size so the death is not too fast)
In your world maybe people should just be left to do whatever they want, to whoever they want whenever they want. Why put them in jail at all? We wouldn’t want to offend them.
Where, in what I said, is any suggestion that people should be allowed to do whatever they want? Or that I worry about offending them?
Given that there are no such suggestions, why are you putting those concepts into "my world"? They don't exist there and they are your fabrication.
Yes, I am serious - read what I wrote instead of what you imagine I'm thinking.
Judicial murder is wrong for whatever reason it is used. That you do not like the moral reasoning behind stoning in KSA or that M.A.S. does not like the moral reasoning behind the U.S. death penalty is irrelevant, it is murder of a citizen by the state and it is wrong.
If a person has broken the laws of your country then lock him up. It that person continues to be a danger to the people of that country then throw away the key but murder is murder whether carried out by a person or by the person of the state.
You might argue that an adulteress is not a danger to the people of KSA - M.A.S. might argue that the danger is a moral one and more dangerous than the physical danger represented by a violent prisoner. Fine, argue away - someone might actually change someone else's mind eventually but in the meantime, both countries should stop the killing.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Hi everyone
I don’t understand why Saudis are asking for this man to be released other than the fact that he is their fellow countryman.
Honestly, if he went to the USA and committed crimes then sadly he must face the consequences. Now, if he has wrongly been accused of these crimes then that is altogether a different matter.
Seriously, if an American (or anyone else for that matter) committed these same crimes in Saudi then most likely everyone would want justice to be done and we are all well aware of the punishments meted out here.
We may not like the laws of particular lands but if you visit them then you had better well abide by them otherwise you lose. I’m tired of hearing people cry foul when they get caught breaking laws in foreign lands!
Now, as a Muslim, I feel for Homaidan but if he truly is guilty then I don’t care if the King himself made a plea on that video then he must accept responsibility for his actions and serve his time.
I agree that the act of making this video is a good example of how Saudis can better utilize social media for various causes. But this in my opinion is not a good cause. What sort of message is this sending out about Saudis? About Muslims? What does this teach to our children?
This has serious implications that should be addressed before more people jump on the bandwagon of supporting a possible criminal.
I don’t want to sound insensitive here. I don’t know the details of his case but 28 yrs does sound excessive. I wouldn’t disagree so much if they were rallying to have his term shortened as opposed to a full out pardon from Obama.
I would respect Homaidan a lot more if he would serve his term (hopefully less than 28yrs) quietly and in a dignified manner.
I don’t understand why Saudis are asking for this man to be released other than the fact that he is their fellow countryman.
Honestly, if he went to the USA and committed crimes then sadly he must face the consequences. Now, if he has wrongly been accused of these crimes then that is altogether a different matter.
Seriously, if an American (or anyone else for that matter) committed these same crimes in Saudi then most likely everyone would want justice to be done and we are all well aware of the punishments meted out here.
We may not like the laws of particular lands but if you visit them then you had better well abide by them otherwise you lose. I’m tired of hearing people cry foul when they get caught breaking laws in foreign lands!
Now, as a Muslim, I feel for Homaidan but if he truly is guilty then I don’t care if the King himself made a plea on that video then he must accept responsibility for his actions and serve his time.
I agree that the act of making this video is a good example of how Saudis can better utilize social media for various causes. But this in my opinion is not a good cause. What sort of message is this sending out about Saudis? About Muslims? What does this teach to our children?
This has serious implications that should be addressed before more people jump on the bandwagon of supporting a possible criminal.
I don’t want to sound insensitive here. I don’t know the details of his case but 28 yrs does sound excessive. I wouldn’t disagree so much if they were rallying to have his term shortened as opposed to a full out pardon from Obama.
I would respect Homaidan a lot more if he would serve his term (hopefully less than 28yrs) quietly and in a dignified manner.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Hi Yazeed and welcome to the Garden.
Some nice points in your post - generally, with good behaviour, a prisoner is considered for early release.
Some nice points in your post - generally, with good behaviour, a prisoner is considered for early release.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Welcome Yazeed. Thank you for taking the time to join and give your views. Coming to the attention of the police in any country is a nightmare but even more so if one is a foreign resident, I have a measure of sympathy for Homaidan Al-Turki regardless of the circumstances which led to his prosecution, as I have for his entire household. There's an element of "how much harm can we do to this man" in the actions of the investigators, and an appearance of coercion in creating their case. The concept of the jury system is unconvincing when the defendant is a stranger in a strange land.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Obama ! Free Homaidan
Yazeed;1332227 wrote: Hi everyone
I don’t understand why Saudis are asking for this man to be released other than the fact that he is their fellow countryman.
Honestly, if he went to the USA and committed crimes then sadly he must face the consequences. Now, if he has wrongly been accused of these crimes then that is altogether a different matter.
Seriously, if an American (or anyone else for that matter) committed these same crimes in Saudi then most likely everyone would want justice to be done and we are all well aware of the punishments meted out here.
We may not like the laws of particular lands but if you visit them then you had better well abide by them otherwise you lose. I’m tired of hearing people cry foul when they get caught breaking laws in foreign lands!
Now, as a Muslim, I feel for Homaidan but if he truly is guilty then I don’t care if the King himself made a plea on that video then he must accept responsibility for his actions and serve his time.
I agree that the act of making this video is a good example of how Saudis can better utilize social media for various causes. But this in my opinion is not a good cause. What sort of message is this sending out about Saudis? About Muslims? What does this teach to our children?
This has serious implications that should be addressed before more people jump on the bandwagon of supporting a possible criminal.
I don’t want to sound insensitive here. I don’t know the details of his case but 28 yrs does sound excessive. I wouldn’t disagree so much if they were rallying to have his term shortened as opposed to a full out pardon from Obama.
I would respect Homaidan a lot more if he would serve his term (hopefully less than 28yrs) quietly and in a dignified manner.
Hello and welcome, thank you for your well thought out and balanced views.
On a slightly different topic, (but still relevant as this came into the discussion when the topic of human rights and justice were talked about in one of the posts)
What is your honest opinion and what message is sent out to the world about Saudi’s and Muslims and what does it teach your children in a country where women are still stoned to death?
I am not trying to cause aggravation with this question, I am asking honestly. Can a plea for justice be taken seriously from a country where justice is seen as a joke?
I don’t understand why Saudis are asking for this man to be released other than the fact that he is their fellow countryman.
Honestly, if he went to the USA and committed crimes then sadly he must face the consequences. Now, if he has wrongly been accused of these crimes then that is altogether a different matter.
Seriously, if an American (or anyone else for that matter) committed these same crimes in Saudi then most likely everyone would want justice to be done and we are all well aware of the punishments meted out here.
We may not like the laws of particular lands but if you visit them then you had better well abide by them otherwise you lose. I’m tired of hearing people cry foul when they get caught breaking laws in foreign lands!
Now, as a Muslim, I feel for Homaidan but if he truly is guilty then I don’t care if the King himself made a plea on that video then he must accept responsibility for his actions and serve his time.
I agree that the act of making this video is a good example of how Saudis can better utilize social media for various causes. But this in my opinion is not a good cause. What sort of message is this sending out about Saudis? About Muslims? What does this teach to our children?
This has serious implications that should be addressed before more people jump on the bandwagon of supporting a possible criminal.
I don’t want to sound insensitive here. I don’t know the details of his case but 28 yrs does sound excessive. I wouldn’t disagree so much if they were rallying to have his term shortened as opposed to a full out pardon from Obama.
I would respect Homaidan a lot more if he would serve his term (hopefully less than 28yrs) quietly and in a dignified manner.
Hello and welcome, thank you for your well thought out and balanced views.
On a slightly different topic, (but still relevant as this came into the discussion when the topic of human rights and justice were talked about in one of the posts)
What is your honest opinion and what message is sent out to the world about Saudi’s and Muslims and what does it teach your children in a country where women are still stoned to death?
I am not trying to cause aggravation with this question, I am asking honestly. Can a plea for justice be taken seriously from a country where justice is seen as a joke?