absolutely not genocide, ethnic cleansing and laws that effect multiple of people are not acceptable. there is a limit to everything. but people like hitler are not that common. i explined my position in response to STOX so please read it and i will explain if you have a question.
Being murdered in a mass genocide and being tortured to death alongside your lover are no different to the people who are being murdered. You are arbitrarily saying that Shano and Daulet are less human and have fewer human rights because of the circumstances of their birth. This is no moral justification for your racism.
innocent by what law. according to their law a person is found guilty and is being stoned to death. you want to force your law on them. how is it different from what you think they want to do? no i am saying it is none of your business. you are trying to impose your morality on other people. on top of that attaching the fault to their religion rather than treating it as a social issue is making it much harder to to prevent the next time. so at a minimum you have a bad strategy.or you have a different goal
I am not sure how you are still failing to understand a point that is this simple. I will try again to explain this to you, even though I have very little hope for success. If I (PersonC) see PersonA trying to murder PersonB, I will try to stop them. This is an act which protects PersonB, but also may protect me (PersonC) in the future. Murder cannot be allowed to go unstopped, or no one (including me, PersonC) will be safe. I am not taking away any rights of PersonA -- because PersonA has no moral right to take the life of PersonB. PersonA, on the other hand, is violating the rights of PersonB. What I am doing is protecting the rights of PersonB and of myself (PersonC). PersonA automatically gave up his own rights when he chose to violate the rights of PersonB. Perhaps you will understand it better as John Stuart Mill explained it: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. -- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), On Liberty, Chapter 1 Or Thomas Paine: He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. -- Thomas Paine How about George Washington? The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785). Maybe Thomas Jefferson? No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. ...the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights. -- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Francis W. Gilmor, July 7, 1786 How about another try from Tom? Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -- Thomas Jefferson Skip ahead to Abe Lincoln? No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. -- Abraham Lincoln Maybe you will appreciate Clarence Darrow's take on this issue? You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man's freedom. You can be free only if I am free. -- Clarence Darrow Or maybe David Friedman might clear up your difficulty understanding what rights each of us does and does not have: If we consider that each person owns his own body and can acquire ownership of other things by creating them, or by having ownership transferred to him by another owner, it becomes at least formally possible to define "being left alone" and its opposite, "being coerced". Someone who forcibly prevents me from using my property as I want, when I am not using it to violate his right to use his property, is coercing me. A man who prevents me from taking heroin coerces me; a man who prevents me from shooting him does not. -- David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom Let's follow your logic to it's natural conclusion. If I murder your mother and father and your sisters and brothers, will you choose to leave me alone because it's none of your business? Shano and Daulet were, in the big picture, my sister and brother. On a more practical level, if we do not stop this murdering now -- eventually we will ourselves be murdered. This would be a good time to remember the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller: When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Speak up for Shano and Daulet or you may eventually find yourself in their place.
maybe you just walked in on an undercover trying to shoot a suicide bomber? killing a person that is sentenced to execution in texas is murder killing a person that is sentenced to execution in afganestan is murder so the law of texas is superior to law of afganestan? why?how do you decide?what is the criteria?
There's risks to everything. There are plenty of cases of undercover police being killed by other police. But in these cases, what should the police do?
Superior law or not is subjective, but Texas certainly have better law enforcement than Afghanistan. You can have the perfect laws, but with no proper enforcement it becomes naught.
better for afganistan? we can work on the enforcement they are cooperating with us. i don't even know what to say @will spencer do not get me wrong that i approve of these acts. i think we should do what is necessary to change the laws in these country that oppress people. i just disagree with you on your approach. i think majority of the muslems see the problem in their govt. some of their so called religious leaders and their society but not in their god or religion. if you try to reach your goal based on these ideas you can get a lot more cooperation from mulems and probably achieve much better result. you should make it your goal to dedicate peace to Shano and Daulet. my apology for being cold but i sometime need to shock to make my point
Thank you pizzaman I couldn't say better. These two lines sum up what I been trying to say the past few days. I too apologize to you Will.Spencer, and anybody else that I might have offended with my posts, was not my intention, Peace.
Do you think people should be executed for being gay pizzaman? If not, how can you not oppose the execution of someone for being gay and oppose execution of someone for being jewish? Either you are to "mind your own business" or not.
bad laws bad judges bad customs bad government and it can be discussed easily and we can work with people on the other side in resolving the issue. we bring religion in it and it becomes divisive and argumentative.but still if they insist on one of their laws they do not need my permision
So when killing is done because of religion we should "mind our own business"? It would be nice to get a straight forward answer to these straight forward questions for a change. You are still yet to answer my previous question.
I am, So what? repeat: It would be nice to get a straight forward answer to these straight forward questions for a change. You are still yet to answer my previous questionS.
then what kind of powers do you think their god has? i would not want to live under any of these countries but i do not see them having divine problem either. just social and cultural. but it is ultimately their problem.
Their god doesn't exist, He is fictional. But that is irrelevant. If people were being killed the the name of santa i wouldn't say "it doesn't matter, santa doesn't exist". If people are being executed for reasons such as being gay decent people have to oppose it, regardless where the murderers find their justification. Where would we be if the holocaust was seen as "just social and cultural" and "their problem". Why do you think we should oppose the killing of people because of race and not because of sexuality?
Just to clarify a few points: I believe Nora is a female. Your use of "buddy" is usually reserved for males. In other words it can be construed as an insult. Also, Nora states that she is from the Netherlands. Washington is not the capital of the Netherlands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_of_the_Netherlands So book your last plane trip to there. Additionally, a familiar pattern has emerged here. A disagreement about Nora's statement becomes a domineering implication of an assumed proxy nemesis. I guess every time the world hears the threat of violence against us because of disagreements from words or actions, we should assume that all are like that?
If you are calling someone, some group terrorist 24x7 it makes sick and it makes brains crash... It must be calilng personal attacks calling one of biggest religion followers terrorists.. THAT IS NOT RIGHT