A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals if they are willing to damage a man's spinal cord as punishment for a cleaver attack that left a 22-year-old paralysed.
The victim, Abdul-Aziz al Mutairi, became paralysed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago.
An unnamed man was sentenced to 14 months in prison for the assault, but released after serving only half that time.
The shortened jail time has reportedly enraged Mr Mutairi's family.
His 27-year-old brother Khaled said they want an equivalent punishment for the attacker and have appealed to a judge in northwestern Tabuk province.
"We are asking for our legal right under Islamic law," the brother said.
"There is no better word than God's word - an eye for an eye."
The judge has since asked several hospitals if medical paralysis was possible and would they perform the operation.
Local newspapers reported a facility in the capital Riyadh had declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.
Saudi Arabia enforces strict Islamic law and occasionally hands out punishments based on the ancient legal code.
Amnesty International has expressed concerns over the reports and said it was contacting Saudi authorities for details.
"We are very concerned and we will appeal to the authorities not to carry out such a punishment," said Lamri Chirouf, the group's researcher on Saudi Arabia.
He added this was the first time Amnesty had heard of a punishment involving the damaging of a spinal cord.
"It's hard to follow details of the Saudi justice system. People are sentenced in closed trials with no access to the public and no lawyers."
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine - Yahoo! News UK
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
I can't see anything in that report which confirms "Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine", Rap.
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.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
spot;1328920 wrote: I can't see anything in that report which confirms "Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine", Rap.
Rapunzel;1328907 wrote: A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals if they are willing to damage a man's spinal cord as punishment for a cleaver attack that left a 22-year-old paralysed.
The judge has since asked several hospitals if medical paralysis was possible and would they perform the operation.
Local newspapers reported a facility in the capital Riyadh had declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.
He added this was the first time Amnesty had heard of a punishment involving the damaging of a spinal cord.
A judge has asked . . . a facility has declined . . . the first time Amnesty had heard of . . .
Whilst 3 different sources have verified the claim it is still only hearsay, as are so many news paper reports.
I thought it was an item of interest to other FG readers particularly given the recent threads on Islam and Sharia Law.
I've also been reading an article on how many illegals come into the country through human trafficking and how they are often mules for the drug barons as they are carrying condoms full of heroin in their stomachs. Whilst I in no way agree with Sharia Law, I do think that we need a tightening up of laws and some astute sanctions in place rather than the lame loop-holes of laws that we have now.
Other than that, you know as much as I do, via the link I added. I'm afraid I can't give you any further data than that Spot.
Rapunzel;1328907 wrote: A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals if they are willing to damage a man's spinal cord as punishment for a cleaver attack that left a 22-year-old paralysed.
The judge has since asked several hospitals if medical paralysis was possible and would they perform the operation.
Local newspapers reported a facility in the capital Riyadh had declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.
He added this was the first time Amnesty had heard of a punishment involving the damaging of a spinal cord.
A judge has asked . . . a facility has declined . . . the first time Amnesty had heard of . . .
Whilst 3 different sources have verified the claim it is still only hearsay, as are so many news paper reports.
I thought it was an item of interest to other FG readers particularly given the recent threads on Islam and Sharia Law.
I've also been reading an article on how many illegals come into the country through human trafficking and how they are often mules for the drug barons as they are carrying condoms full of heroin in their stomachs. Whilst I in no way agree with Sharia Law, I do think that we need a tightening up of laws and some astute sanctions in place rather than the lame loop-holes of laws that we have now.
Other than that, you know as much as I do, via the link I added. I'm afraid I can't give you any further data than that Spot.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
That would certainly fit the punishment to the crime.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
Accountable;1328945 wrote: That would certainly fit the punishment to the crime.
If that happened in this country the perpetrator would be receiving counseling because his parents divorce as a toddler allegedly drove him to it, whilst the victim would be lucky to get a manky old NHS wheelchair with skewed wheels. :-5
If that happened in this country the perpetrator would be receiving counseling because his parents divorce as a toddler allegedly drove him to it, whilst the victim would be lucky to get a manky old NHS wheelchair with skewed wheels. :-5
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
If he is guilty this is truely a "Eye for an Eye".
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
CARLA;1328980 wrote: If he is guilty this is truely a "Eye for an Eye".
True, and as Gandhi is credited as saying,
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and soon the whole world will be blind and toothless"
True, and as Gandhi is credited as saying,
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and soon the whole world will be blind and toothless"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
Rapunzel;1328935 wrote: A judge has asked . . . a facility has declined . . . the first time Amnesty had heard of . . .
Whilst 3 different sources have verified the claim it is still only hearsay, as are so many news paper reports.
I should just stop being so polite, I suppose. Avoiding my original diffident suggestion that you might have inadvertently erred, there is absolutely nothing at all in the news article which supports your thread title, "Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine". Unless you've seen it elsewhere, if you're just relying on the news article you've quoted, your thread title is an invention entirely made up by you and you alone and it never happened. No Judge Asked Any Doctor To Damage Any Criminal's Spine. Okay?
Let's try it that way instead, shall we?
eta: The link goes to a Yahoo article which, I now find, carries the title you used here, so it's not your invention after all. I'd only read the thread, where the source of the thread title wasn't at all apparent. My criticism of the title still stands.
Whilst 3 different sources have verified the claim it is still only hearsay, as are so many news paper reports.
I should just stop being so polite, I suppose. Avoiding my original diffident suggestion that you might have inadvertently erred, there is absolutely nothing at all in the news article which supports your thread title, "Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine". Unless you've seen it elsewhere, if you're just relying on the news article you've quoted, your thread title is an invention entirely made up by you and you alone and it never happened. No Judge Asked Any Doctor To Damage Any Criminal's Spine. Okay?
Let's try it that way instead, shall we?
eta: The link goes to a Yahoo article which, I now find, carries the title you used here, so it's not your invention after all. I'd only read the thread, where the source of the thread title wasn't at all apparent. My criticism of the title still stands.
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.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
spot;1329032 wrote: I should just stop being so polite, I suppose. Avoiding my original diffident suggestion that you might have inadvertently erred, there is absolutely nothing at all in the news article which supports your thread title, "Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine". Unless you've seen it elsewhere, if you're just relying on the news article you've quoted, your thread title is an invention entirely made up by you and you alone and it never happened. No Judge Asked Any Doctor To Damage Any Criminal's Spine. Okay?
Let's try it that way instead, shall we?
eta: The link goes to a Yahoo article which, I now find, carries the title you used here, so it's not your invention after all. I'd only read the thread, where the source of the thread title wasn't at all apparent. My criticism of the title still stands.
Are you being a little pedantic, hun?
If you're going to eta and criticise the title (which as you pointed out, I didn't choose) why not, at the same time, delete your first paragraph, particularly "Unless you've seen it elsewhere, if you're just relying on the news article you've quoted, your thread title is an invention entirely made up by you and you alone and it never happened. No Judge Asked Any Doctor To Damage Any Criminal's Spine. Okay?"
Which I find particularly offensive.
An apology, when you're in the wrong, would mitigate the situation slightly, but you would have been better to delete the whole erroneous criticism.
eta: the source of the thread title was apparent in both the link above above and as the title to the open link, proving it came from yahoo and not from me.
PS. What kind of proof are you looking for? A signed affidavit from the judge?
Let's try it that way instead, shall we?
eta: The link goes to a Yahoo article which, I now find, carries the title you used here, so it's not your invention after all. I'd only read the thread, where the source of the thread title wasn't at all apparent. My criticism of the title still stands.
Are you being a little pedantic, hun?
If you're going to eta and criticise the title (which as you pointed out, I didn't choose) why not, at the same time, delete your first paragraph, particularly "Unless you've seen it elsewhere, if you're just relying on the news article you've quoted, your thread title is an invention entirely made up by you and you alone and it never happened. No Judge Asked Any Doctor To Damage Any Criminal's Spine. Okay?"
Which I find particularly offensive.
An apology, when you're in the wrong, would mitigate the situation slightly, but you would have been better to delete the whole erroneous criticism.
eta: the source of the thread title was apparent in both the link above above and as the title to the open link, proving it came from yahoo and not from me.
PS. What kind of proof are you looking for? A signed affidavit from the judge?
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
Rapunzel;1329123 wrote: PS. What kind of proof are you looking for? A signed affidavit from the judge?
Deleting text from a post, as opposed to adding a clarification, is far less respectable. Once it's been posted it's out there and ought not to be changed.
The ambiguity exists in not being able to tell, without clicking the link and noticing, that the thread title is itself a copy of someone else's original. Perhaps looking more closely would have alerted me to the possibility but even so, adopting it as the thread title does imply a degree of acceptance of the statement. It's become, by that stage, the thread title on FG's thread list.
My point is not that anything's unproven, it's that the article makes it absolutely clear that the thread title (and, as you point out, the original article title) is completely untrue. The judge made enquiries in order to inform himself so as to respond to the application, he most certainly didn't ask any doctor to damage anyone's spine. Would you accept that as accurate, at this stage, or are you saying maybe he did maybe he didn't?
We could, if you like, discuss whether or not it's a reasonable sentence compared to the English alternative of imprisonment or a fine. I know of no evidence that imprisonment has any positive effect in terms of deterrence, of reform or of punishment. The Saudi judicial system can at least point to their far lower crime rate to support the removal of extremities as a deterrent to potential offenders. The question really boils down to whether surgically inducing paraplegia furthers the same end.
Deleting text from a post, as opposed to adding a clarification, is far less respectable. Once it's been posted it's out there and ought not to be changed.
The ambiguity exists in not being able to tell, without clicking the link and noticing, that the thread title is itself a copy of someone else's original. Perhaps looking more closely would have alerted me to the possibility but even so, adopting it as the thread title does imply a degree of acceptance of the statement. It's become, by that stage, the thread title on FG's thread list.
My point is not that anything's unproven, it's that the article makes it absolutely clear that the thread title (and, as you point out, the original article title) is completely untrue. The judge made enquiries in order to inform himself so as to respond to the application, he most certainly didn't ask any doctor to damage anyone's spine. Would you accept that as accurate, at this stage, or are you saying maybe he did maybe he didn't?
We could, if you like, discuss whether or not it's a reasonable sentence compared to the English alternative of imprisonment or a fine. I know of no evidence that imprisonment has any positive effect in terms of deterrence, of reform or of punishment. The Saudi judicial system can at least point to their far lower crime rate to support the removal of extremities as a deterrent to potential offenders. The question really boils down to whether surgically inducing paraplegia furthers the same end.
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.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
spot;1329126 wrote:
The Saudi judicial system can at least point to their far lower crime rate to support the removal of extremities as a deterrent to potential offenders. The question really boils down to whether surgically inducing paraplegia furthers the same end.
I suppose to the extent that a pickpocket without his hands would find repeat offences difficult to master, thats entirely right. Its difficult for us in the West to grasp the extent Sharia law is prepared to punish offenders. It does seem, with its particular interpretation of Islamic Law, Saudi women get the rough end of a very shitty stick
The Saudi judicial system can at least point to their far lower crime rate to support the removal of extremities as a deterrent to potential offenders. The question really boils down to whether surgically inducing paraplegia furthers the same end.
I suppose to the extent that a pickpocket without his hands would find repeat offences difficult to master, thats entirely right. Its difficult for us in the West to grasp the extent Sharia law is prepared to punish offenders. It does seem, with its particular interpretation of Islamic Law, Saudi women get the rough end of a very shitty stick
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
spot;1329126 wrote: The judge made enquiries in order to inform himself so as to respond to the application, he most certainly didn't ask any doctor to damage anyone's spine. Would you accept that as accurate, at this stage, or are you saying maybe he did maybe he didn't?
We could, if you like, discuss whether or not it's a reasonable sentence compared to the English alternative of imprisonment or a fine. I know of no evidence that imprisonment has any positive effect in terms of deterrence, of reform or of punishment. The Saudi judicial system can at least point to their far lower crime rate to support the removal of extremities as a deterrent to potential offenders. The question really boils down to whether surgically inducing paraplegia furthers the same end.
From the original article I give you this quote:
The judge has since asked several hospitals if medical paralysis was possible and would they perform the operation.
Local newspapers reported a facility in the capital Riyadh had declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.
I agree with you that the first sentence implies that the judge has made enquiries in order to inform himself if such a course of action were indeed possible.
However, the second sentence implies that the judge actually asked the question as the hospital "declined, saying it could not inflict such harm". If this were merely an enquiry from the judge then surely the facility would negate the possibility rather than decline what has surely been a suggestion.
To be honest I think that this is all merely semantics as without further information we are guessing blindly according to our own feelings on the matter.
So to answer your question, no, I don't accept that as accurate, to me it implies that the judge either asked the question or made a suggestion as to the possibility of it happening but I would take it as a stronger comment than just to keep himself informed.
For your second paragraph, I agree that imprisonment appears to have no positive effect in terms of deterrence, partly because, imo, it is so hard for ex-cons to find decent jobs that they have to fall back into their old ways in order to survive. I'm not using that as an excuse or saying it applies in every case, I'm just saying it doesn't help.
"The Saudi judicial system can at least point to their far lower crime rate to support the removal of extremities as a deterrent to potential offenders."
True, but again, how can removing hands help that person work to support himself and his family? Also, a prison sentence may be 25 years (for example) but such a physical punishment would be a lifetime's punishment. In such a case the punishment would surely be greater than the crime. Furthermore, if such punishments truly worked, would you still have people making the same mistakes? Surely they should learn from the example set?
"The question really boils down to whether surgically inducing paraplegia furthers the same end."
This is such a hard question. If this were my child I would want to inflict the greatest amount of harm and pain possible on the perpetrator. However, you also have to consider that he has spent time in prison (although not enough time!) which means you would be punishing him twice.
You also have to consider that he may find it hard to earn a living, so having paralysed him your government may have to pay out for his benefits for the remainder of his life. (I don't know the Saudi outlook on benefits. Do they even exist there?) Yet if they didn't subsidise him in some way he could starve to death on the streets, thereby making their punishment one of death and so again the punishment would outweigh the crime.
Finally you have to consider that in their haste they may have arrested the wrong man. It may not be the case here but it does happen. What then if you paralyse an innocent party? It's a God-awful decision and not one I would ever wish to make. (Unless, as I say, it was my child, in which case I would hunt the bas***d down and kill him and to h*ll with the consequences).
We could, if you like, discuss whether or not it's a reasonable sentence compared to the English alternative of imprisonment or a fine. I know of no evidence that imprisonment has any positive effect in terms of deterrence, of reform or of punishment. The Saudi judicial system can at least point to their far lower crime rate to support the removal of extremities as a deterrent to potential offenders. The question really boils down to whether surgically inducing paraplegia furthers the same end.
From the original article I give you this quote:
The judge has since asked several hospitals if medical paralysis was possible and would they perform the operation.
Local newspapers reported a facility in the capital Riyadh had declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.
I agree with you that the first sentence implies that the judge has made enquiries in order to inform himself if such a course of action were indeed possible.
However, the second sentence implies that the judge actually asked the question as the hospital "declined, saying it could not inflict such harm". If this were merely an enquiry from the judge then surely the facility would negate the possibility rather than decline what has surely been a suggestion.
To be honest I think that this is all merely semantics as without further information we are guessing blindly according to our own feelings on the matter.
So to answer your question, no, I don't accept that as accurate, to me it implies that the judge either asked the question or made a suggestion as to the possibility of it happening but I would take it as a stronger comment than just to keep himself informed.
For your second paragraph, I agree that imprisonment appears to have no positive effect in terms of deterrence, partly because, imo, it is so hard for ex-cons to find decent jobs that they have to fall back into their old ways in order to survive. I'm not using that as an excuse or saying it applies in every case, I'm just saying it doesn't help.
"The Saudi judicial system can at least point to their far lower crime rate to support the removal of extremities as a deterrent to potential offenders."
True, but again, how can removing hands help that person work to support himself and his family? Also, a prison sentence may be 25 years (for example) but such a physical punishment would be a lifetime's punishment. In such a case the punishment would surely be greater than the crime. Furthermore, if such punishments truly worked, would you still have people making the same mistakes? Surely they should learn from the example set?
"The question really boils down to whether surgically inducing paraplegia furthers the same end."
This is such a hard question. If this were my child I would want to inflict the greatest amount of harm and pain possible on the perpetrator. However, you also have to consider that he has spent time in prison (although not enough time!) which means you would be punishing him twice.
You also have to consider that he may find it hard to earn a living, so having paralysed him your government may have to pay out for his benefits for the remainder of his life. (I don't know the Saudi outlook on benefits. Do they even exist there?) Yet if they didn't subsidise him in some way he could starve to death on the streets, thereby making their punishment one of death and so again the punishment would outweigh the crime.
Finally you have to consider that in their haste they may have arrested the wrong man. It may not be the case here but it does happen. What then if you paralyse an innocent party? It's a God-awful decision and not one I would ever wish to make. (Unless, as I say, it was my child, in which case I would hunt the bas***d down and kill him and to h*ll with the consequences).
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
Your position appears to be identical with that of the family which asked the judge to pass that particular sentence.
The sole function of imprisonment in current Western practice, it strikes me, is that during the period of imprisonment the guilty party isn't in a position to re-offend. The Saudi judicial system makes that inability permanent. I'm not sure why you'd wish that inability to be anything less. I'd also want it to be permanent here, though I'd achieve this objective through effective rehabilitation rather than surgery. How to develop an effective form of rehabilitation is a matter beyond the scope of the thread but I'm quite sure it's possible and equally sure it's not currently attempted in any Western jurisdiction.
The Saudi approach of judicial amputation isn't intended to improve the life quality of the convict, it's intended to stop the next ninety nine potential criminals from stepping over the line for fear of the same. The benefit to society outweighs the harm to the criminal and as such it's arguably a moral stance.
The sole function of imprisonment in current Western practice, it strikes me, is that during the period of imprisonment the guilty party isn't in a position to re-offend. The Saudi judicial system makes that inability permanent. I'm not sure why you'd wish that inability to be anything less. I'd also want it to be permanent here, though I'd achieve this objective through effective rehabilitation rather than surgery. How to develop an effective form of rehabilitation is a matter beyond the scope of the thread but I'm quite sure it's possible and equally sure it's not currently attempted in any Western jurisdiction.
The Saudi approach of judicial amputation isn't intended to improve the life quality of the convict, it's intended to stop the next ninety nine potential criminals from stepping over the line for fear of the same. The benefit to society outweighs the harm to the criminal and as such it's arguably a moral stance.
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.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
posted by spot
The Saudi approach of judicial amputation isn't intended to improve the life quality of the convict, it's intended to stop the next ninety nine potential criminals from stepping over the line for fear of the same. The benefit to society outweighs the harm to the criminal and as such it's arguably a moral stance.
It may be a moral stance but it's not much of one is it?
The Saudi approach of judicial amputation isn't intended to improve the life quality of the convict, it's intended to stop the next ninety nine potential criminals from stepping over the line for fear of the same. The benefit to society outweighs the harm to the criminal and as such it's arguably a moral stance.
It may be a moral stance but it's not much of one is it?
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
spot;1329183 wrote: Your position appears to be identical with that of the family which asked the judge to pass that particular sentence.
You seem to like to put people in boxes and once again you've put me in the wrong box.
What I actually said was that I don't agree with this punishment. The term he served, imo, was not enough but surgical paraplegia, imo, is too much. Yes it would be an eye for an eye, but what purpose would it serve really?
There needs to be a middle path, a suitable punishment to fit the crime. Rehabilitation is a good idea but has it's effectiveness ever been truly ascertained?
What I also said is that if it were my child I would do my utmost to kill the basta*d. That's not a well thought out rational position, thats an angry parent seeing red and acting on instinct and I would claim diminished responsibility in court. However, so long as I could kill the person who harmed my child, I wouldn't care if I hanged for it. Rationality be damned.
You seem to like to put people in boxes and once again you've put me in the wrong box.
What I actually said was that I don't agree with this punishment. The term he served, imo, was not enough but surgical paraplegia, imo, is too much. Yes it would be an eye for an eye, but what purpose would it serve really?
There needs to be a middle path, a suitable punishment to fit the crime. Rehabilitation is a good idea but has it's effectiveness ever been truly ascertained?
What I also said is that if it were my child I would do my utmost to kill the basta*d. That's not a well thought out rational position, thats an angry parent seeing red and acting on instinct and I would claim diminished responsibility in court. However, so long as I could kill the person who harmed my child, I wouldn't care if I hanged for it. Rationality be damned.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
Surely your last paragraph is identical with what I wrote?
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.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
spot;1329315 wrote: Surely your last paragraph is identical with what I wrote?
No, there's a difference. Maybe the line is too fine for you to see or maybe I haven't explained my POV clearly enough.
It's really not worth nit-picking over though.
No, there's a difference. Maybe the line is too fine for you to see or maybe I haven't explained my POV clearly enough.
It's really not worth nit-picking over though.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
Whether I can see it or not, if there's a difference you can surely express it. They're related and consequently vengeful and trying to make the chap suffer to the greatest extent within their power. For them, it's personal. What differs in your final paragraph?
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.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
What differs is that I can't be arsed to nit-pick over semantics and I really don't care about what happens to any of them, sad and lame though that probably is.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
Rapunzel;1329328 wrote: What differs is that I can't be arsed to nit-pick over semantics and I really don't care about what happens to any of them, sad and lame though that probably is.
Then you ought not post things like "You seem to like to put people in boxes and once again you've put me in the wrong box", because I don't and I didn't.
Then you ought not post things like "You seem to like to put people in boxes and once again you've put me in the wrong box", because I don't and I didn't.
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.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
spot;1329362 wrote: Then you ought not post things like "You seem to like to put people in boxes and once again you've put me in the wrong box", because I don't and I didn't.
You've told me several times before what you think I'm thinking and you were wrong. Sometimes you seem to get the bit between your teeth and want to nitpick on all the finer points or worry them out until you've sorted everything out until your happy with it.
Somethings I would happily nitpick through with you to the nth degree. But while I found this topic interesting, it's not interesting enough to me to go into all the nitty-gritty little details.
It doesn't help that I'm really tired and desperately need to go and get a few hours sleep. I'll come back to it when I'm awake and see if it's worth carrying on with.
Make some salient points for me to read through when I come back. *smiley sleepy yawny face* Nighty night.
You've told me several times before what you think I'm thinking and you were wrong. Sometimes you seem to get the bit between your teeth and want to nitpick on all the finer points or worry them out until you've sorted everything out until your happy with it.
Somethings I would happily nitpick through with you to the nth degree. But while I found this topic interesting, it's not interesting enough to me to go into all the nitty-gritty little details.
It doesn't help that I'm really tired and desperately need to go and get a few hours sleep. I'll come back to it when I'm awake and see if it's worth carrying on with.
Make some salient points for me to read through when I come back. *smiley sleepy yawny face* Nighty night.
Judge Asks Doctors To Damage Criminal's Spine
spot;1329322 wrote: Whether I can see it or not, if there's a difference you can surely express it. They're related and consequently vengeful and trying to make the chap suffer to the greatest extent within their power. For them, it's personal. What differs in your final paragraph?
There is a considerable difference I'm surprised you can't see it. It's the difference between an action taken in the heat of the moment when angry and in defence of a child and one taken in cold blood. It's why in the west we have a jury system so that the peers of the people on trial can decide whether an action was reasonable or not rather than a closed court system with a religious judge using an old collection of fairy stories as the basis of the punishment - and deciding what is a crime come to that. Most reasonable people don't think having sex outside of marriage is enough of a crime to kill those guilty of it but then it's a moral stance isn't it. No doubt knowing you might be stoned to death is an effective deterrent.
There is a considerable difference I'm surprised you can't see it. It's the difference between an action taken in the heat of the moment when angry and in defence of a child and one taken in cold blood. It's why in the west we have a jury system so that the peers of the people on trial can decide whether an action was reasonable or not rather than a closed court system with a religious judge using an old collection of fairy stories as the basis of the punishment - and deciding what is a crime come to that. Most reasonable people don't think having sex outside of marriage is enough of a crime to kill those guilty of it but then it's a moral stance isn't it. No doubt knowing you might be stoned to death is an effective deterrent.