"DerbyX" said So what we have been saying about media pressure and education is correct then and violence isn't the answer.
I'm not sure if you could spin that any harder. You were quite comfortable with he being beaten with a stick for drinking a beer now it's all some great educational parable for us all?
"ridenrain" said So what we have been saying about media pressure and education is correct then and violence isn't the answer.
I'm not sure if you could spin that any harder. You were quite comfortable with he being beaten with a stick for drinking a beer now it's all some great educational parable for us all?
No. My parable is about bringing change without violence.
I'm sure you would have cared if it had been a drug user getting caned right?
"its just a beer" because you aren't against drinking beer.
You supported the punishment though. You defended a justice system that called for this woman to be caned because she broke their religious bans against alcohol.
"ridenrain" said You supported the punishment though. You defended a justice system that called for this woman to be caned because she broke their religious bans against alcohol.
Am I correct?
No. I defended their right to make laws and decide punishments for their society. Thats not defending the actions. Of course they felt it was a proper punishment and they didn't think sending her to jail (like you think drug users should be) was correct.
Its no different then "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".
If their society has a problem with alcohol then they are perfectly justified. Hell we have lots of people here with a problem about alcohol and it isn't based on religion but rather the problems alcohol causes.
Do you recognize that another society has the right to ban things like alcohol?
I'm not against a society's right to do as they wish, but at the same time I do not set aside my values when looking at what they do. If a society wants to cane people for drinking beer, behead adulterers, stone heretics and apostates, remove the genitalia of their women, and etc. then I suppose they have that right.
I have the right to condemn those things as reprehensible and as an affront to my senses. I also have a right to demand that my government curtail relations with nations that practice such barbarity.
"BartSimpson" said I'm not against a society's right to do as they wish, but at the same time I do not set aside my values when looking at what they do. If a society wants to cane people for drinking beer, behead adulterers, stone heretics and apostates, remove the genitalia of their women, and etc. then I suppose they have that right.
I have the right to condemn those things as reprehensible and as an affront to my senses. I also have a right to demand that my government curtail relations with nations that practice such barbarity.
Just as Canada has the right to consider the US barbaric because they still use the death penalty and by our societal standards that is wrong.
Caning beer drinkers is less barbaric then jailing people who just want to smoke pot (or any other drug for that matter).
Caning beer drinkers is less barbaric then jailing people who just want to smoke pot (or any other drug for that matter).
Those same caning beer drinking people also have the death penalty for drug possession.
Who is calling who barbaric ?
The US has the death penalty. Canada does not. Does that mean the US is more barbaric then Canada and we have the right to tell them to change to suit us?
She's still going to get one hell'ova Whoopin eventually.
Sounds like their embarassed by their own barbaric laws. All the international bad press changed their minds.
Bingo!
So what we have been saying about media pressure and education is correct then and violence isn't the answer.
I'm not sure if you could spin that any harder. You were quite comfortable with he being beaten with a stick for drinking a beer now it's all some great educational parable for us all?
So what we have been saying about media pressure and education is correct then and violence isn't the answer.
I'm not sure if you could spin that any harder. You were quite comfortable with he being beaten with a stick for drinking a beer now it's all some great educational parable for us all?
No. My parable is about bringing change without violence.
I'm sure you would have cared if it had been a drug user getting caned right?
"its just a beer" because you aren't against drinking beer.
You defended a justice system that called for this woman to be caned because she broke their religious bans against alcohol.
Am I correct?
You supported the punishment though.
You defended a justice system that called for this woman to be caned because she broke their religious bans against alcohol.
Am I correct?
No. I defended their right to make laws and decide punishments for their society. Thats not defending the actions. Of course they felt it was a proper punishment and they didn't think sending her to jail (like you think drug users should be) was correct.
Its no different then "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".
If their society has a problem with alcohol then they are perfectly justified. Hell we have lots of people here with a problem about alcohol and it isn't based on religion but rather the problems alcohol causes.
Do you recognize that another society has the right to ban things like alcohol?
I have the right to condemn those things as reprehensible and as an affront to my senses. I also have a right to demand that my government curtail relations with nations that practice such barbarity.
I'm not against a society's right to do as they wish, but at the same time I do not set aside my values when looking at what they do. If a society wants to cane people for drinking beer, behead adulterers, stone heretics and apostates, remove the genitalia of their women, and etc. then I suppose they have that right.
I have the right to condemn those things as reprehensible and as an affront to my senses. I also have a right to demand that my government curtail relations with nations that practice such barbarity.
Just as Canada has the right to consider the US barbaric because they still use the death penalty and by our societal standards that is wrong.
Caning beer drinkers is less barbaric then jailing people who just want to smoke pot (or any other drug for that matter).
Caning beer drinkers is less barbaric then jailing people who just want to smoke pot (or any other drug for that matter).
Those same caning beer drinking people also have the death penalty
for drug possession.
Who is calling who barbaric ?
Caning beer drinkers is less barbaric then jailing people who just want to smoke pot (or any other drug for that matter).
Those same caning beer drinking people also have the death penalty
for drug possession.
Who is calling who barbaric ?
The US has the death penalty. Canada does not. Does that mean the US is more barbaric then Canada and we have the right to tell them to change to suit us?