RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow

RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

luckydawg -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 1:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I think the point is that these actions are not representative of a "moderate" society that is trying to "lead the rest of the Middle East toward a brighter future." You are deliberately dicing up my words because you can't argue with what I actually write. You mean you didn't write this - quote: The thing is, the Saudis are the moderates in the area. They truly are our friends, and the hope is that they will climb into the current century as the world continues to shrink because they're mingling with us through the wonders of modern travel and communication and help to lead the rest of the Middle East towards a brighter future. Who did, then? Again, I am convinced that you genuinely don't get how completely illogical and contradictory your positions are. It's not our fault that when we repeat them back to you, they make no sense. They already made no sense before we even started repeating them back. Now this is so blatant, it really is a test of what kind of board we are going to have here. Panda is mis representing what sanity wrote. No where did Sanity say "(SA) is Trying to lead......" He wrote "the hope is they will help lead..." Most of us are capable of diagraming a sentance, or maybeamny of you are not....the idea that the tense of a verb matters may be over some posters heads. So is Panda deliberatly acting dumb? Or is he actually unable to follow a complex sentance? Come on all the lefties that pretend to be in favor of reason and actuall debate.....What say you?

MrRodgers -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 1:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen With respect Mike, showing how Sanity has gone off the rails is probably a task for which someone suitably qualified would be more appropriate; a behavioural psychologist for instance. E Maybe but I doubt it. Look, we have confronted many on our belief in something called human rights. Even in the most general sense, by far most of the worlds countries have signed on. You recall those rights...correct ? The ones that were 'self-evident, inalienable, endowed not by govt. but by our creator ?' Yet, it is all about the oil and trade because we in our great conversation have never told them the only logical conclusion one must draw from their culture. We are told by the Chinese and others including Islam that while we in the west in its still admirable and still very young experiment in freedom, has all of these problems, they tell us that their culture dictates that the countries' leaders (arbitrary, hereditary and often by assassination) through something called a theocracy or political party doctrine will decide just what 'human rights' one has. I will not equivocate there is only one logical conclusion one can make...Islam and the Chinese in particular, are all...less then human. That's it period. A culture that allows one arbitrary set of 'human beings' to decide that another human being, a foreigner and tourist no less, is to die by beheading no less, because he offended their theocratic sensibilities...confirms itself as a primitive culture, and are such cultures that obviously must be seen as...less than human. Some will go so far as to suggest that Islam seeks to make all people, human beings...slave to their culture.

Politesub53 -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 1:29:47 PM)
Merc, here is my attempt at clarity, you asked the following. quote: Which do you think it more hypocritical; applying 'Western' standards to a distinctively different, autonomous culture, or doing it selectively when the culture's practice does, or doesn't, fit into your political philosophy? Which is the more hypocritical, applying standards even handedly, or applying them only when it suits ones politics ? If that is what you mean, and that is how I read it, then I say this. To apply standards only when it suits me is more hypocrital than applying them when it meets my needs or not. The first part of your question suggests consistency, the second hypocracy.

popeye1250 -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 1:31:21 PM)
On the other side we in Western countries prosecute and jail child molestors. That probably outrages people in Saudi Arabia.

Politesub53 -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 1:46:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth 2nd Edit quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 It is the Saudi authorities that tried and convicted him. Tourist or Pilgrim I fail to see the distinction. As I said to merc, the so called crime took place outside Saudi, not inside. Polite, in many places throughout the world, you have to be aware and adapt to local laws or be prepared to accept the consequences. Whether true or not in this case that the 'crime' took place outside Saudi Arabia, as a tourist, 'pilgrim', the expectation of 'exceptional treatment' is foolish. Anywhere we travel we make sure we're fully aware of the local laws and either follow them or assume to live with the consequence of disobeying; granted none as draconian as in this case. Surely the whole thing is exceptional. Here we have a case of a Lebanese citizen about to be executed for appearing in a TV show in his own country. As far as I know Saudi hasnt ever decided to execute anyone for this reason before. In which case how can the accused have been expected to forsee the consequences ?

Sanity -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 1:56:45 PM)
Actually they're probably puzzled at the way we allow pimps to get young boys and girls hooked heroine etc. and then force them into prostitution to maintain their addictions, and punish said pimps with mere slaps on the wrist when caught. Or display our women in ever more shocking pornography. Or behave like gluttons in all you can eat restaurants, that sort of thing. Just a guess but I bet its our leniency and our perceived deprivation that they don't get. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 On the other side we in Western countries prosecute and jail child molestors. That probably outrages people in Saudi Arabia.

LadyEllen -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 2:02:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Maybe but I doubt it. Look, we have confronted many on our belief in something called human rights. Even in the most general sense, by far most of the worlds countries have signed on. You recall those rights...correct ? The ones that were 'self-evident, inalienable, endowed not by govt. but by our creator ?' Yet, it is all about the oil and trade because we in our great conversation have never told them the only logical conclusion one must draw from their culture. We are told by the Chinese and others including Islam that while we in the west in its still admirable and still very young experiment in freedom, has all of these problems, they tell us that their culture dictates that the countries' leaders (arbitrary, hereditary and often by assassination) through something called a theocracy or political party doctrine will decide just what 'human rights' one has. I will not equivocate there is only one logical conclusion one can make...Islam and the Chinese in particular, are all...less then human. That's it period. A culture that allows one arbitrary set of 'human beings' to decide that another human being, a foreigner and tourist no less, is to die by beheading no less, because he offended their theocratic sensibilities...confirms itself as a primitive culture, and are such cultures that obviously must be seen as...less than human. Some will go so far as to suggest that Islam seeks to make all people, human beings...slave to their culture. But here you are again ascribing western norms as the best way to operate a society, particularly by reference to the rights of the individual outweighing the rights of the state. Whilst, with some reservations, I would concur with such a position its only natural I should having been brought up in such an environment. But its by no means certain that it is the best way to operate a society, nor even certain that it is better than its antithesis, except insofar that individuals are going to prefer it. I would suggest that it depends how you measure things as to what societal organisation is better and that it would then also depend on who did the measuring. Those raised in other societal organisation environments are likely to regard their peculiar models as being as good as we might regard our own. Muslims who proselytise do not seek to enslave their prospective converts after all but to help them to realise the error of their former ways and to come into a better way of life as a means of furthering their well being. E

mymastersone89 -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 2:33:21 PM)
I am not sure which I find odder. The idea that critices that the reason is he was a 'witch' or the method of death. Because seriously capital punishenment by electrocution is so much more humane. And you can't tell me in that in all those deaths there was never one innocent victem. Which means at some point over the years of capital punishment some perfectly innocent person was murdered 'legally' by the government ...but that was ok. go figure

domiguy -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 2:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I'm remarkably consistent because what I write I write from my heart. Unfortunately you have a dyslexic heart....I won't post the song because when I hear Paul Westerberg I don't want to think of a total asshat.

domiguy -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 3:03:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub I am keeping score, though... Trolls 477,586 Thomas 2 Tommy scored twice? How is this possible? Which one of you fuckers took a knee in the end zone? Tom really scored two points? Was it during gabage time? Who was at the helm? I want answers!!! Unfortunately "his heart" will soon enough be telling him that he has scored enough to force overtime. Go Tom, go!!!!

Sanity -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 3:03:18 PM)
Or how did you like his next trick where he posted what I did write but with bolded parts while pretending that the parts that he didn't bold didn't exist. Then when called on it he played dumb about it. Or maybe he really is that dumb. Or he could have some form of dementia setting in, I don't know. Whatever it is, its entertaining. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Now this is so blatant, it really is a test of what kind of board we are going to have here. Panda is mis representing what sanity wrote. No where did Sanity say "(SA) is Trying to lead......" He wrote "the hope is they will help lead..." Most of us are capable of diagraming a sentance, or maybeamny of you are not....the idea that the tense of a verb matters may be over some posters heads. So is Panda deliberatly acting dumb? Or is he actually unable to follow a complex sentance? Come on all the lefties that pretend to be in favor of reason and actuall debate.....What say you?

kiwisub12 -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 3:23:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda But the point is, the royal family of Saudi Arabia wants to run their country as though they were still in the Dark Ages. The only reason they get away with it is because we support them and enable their atrocities. If it were possible to withdraw that support, their regime would collapse and they'd be hung like dogs in the street by the people they've been oppressing and mutilating for almost a century. Personally, I'd like to see that happen. It'd be bloody and it'd be chaotic, but in the long run probably far less so than the current state of affairs, and it's almost certainly inevitable at some point anyway. I'd like to see us step back and let them work it out. The thing that came most vividly to my mind when i read this was .... Russia, and the overthrowing of the Tzars. From that little revolution came .... Lenin, and communism. Not sure which regime was best for the average, Joe Blow in the street. They both had their bad points. And given the Arabs contempt for human life, I see way more blood in the streets than in Russia - and Russia wasn't a pretty picture by any means.

Moonhead -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 3:31:50 PM)
Believe it or not, the USSR seems to have worked a lot better for the average type in the street, at least if they didn't get purged. There's a lot of Russians who miss it now. I'm not sure you're right about the other, though: the Iranian revolution was more loathsome for its aftermath than the carnage that took place during it, and seems a more relevant comparison than the Russian revolution.

Moonhead -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 3:35:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Muslims who proselytise do not seek to enslave their prospective converts after all but to help them to realise the error of their former ways and to come into a better way of life as a means of furthering their well being. E That's debatable: the fundamentalist view (particularly among the nutcases who cause all the trouble in the middle east) is that everybody is either Allah's slave or an infidel damned to Hell who needs killing. Now I'm all for multiculturalism, but I've never felt that worldview has any way of accommodating people whose values differ.

Politesub53 -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 3:44:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Believe it or not, the USSR seems to have worked a lot better for the average type in the street, at least if they didn't get purged. There's a lot of Russians who miss it now. I'm not sure you're right about the other, though: the Iranian revolution was more loathsome for its aftermath than the carnage that took place during it, and seems a more relevant comparison than the Russian revolution. There may be a few that hanker for the old Soviet Union, but not the man in the street. Not only did wthey have purges and mass murder under Stalin and others, there were also the deportations. Some 2 million peasants moved at Stalins request. I would love to see any stats proving Russia was better under communism.

thornhappy -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 5:26:19 PM)
The American-imposed monarchy, equipped with a murderous secret service. I really can't figure out where you're coming from, except that you're 4 years younger than me and might not remember the problems of that monarchy. The revolution's been a disaster, but I could understand where people were coming from. Even my Iranian friends stranded in the US could see it. Just because a country appears to listen to us doesn't make them moderate. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Heh, funny you should point to Iran, the poster child for withdrawing support for a moderate monarchy.

thornhappy -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 5:29:02 PM)
So do I. I went to school with them. They didn't like Khomeini, but they sure didn't miss the Shah. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I've known some Iranians who fled the Revolutionary Guard, mike. They missed the old days of the Shah, and they weren't the only ones. The Iranians are wonderful people, its their horrific government who I resent. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u You do understand that was a most qualified "sanity is right" post don't you? Given your clapping hands I would invite Lady E back to explain to you just where and just how often you have gone off the fucking rails over the last 5 pages. By the way please point out where and who suggested we stop "talking" to them....I know you won't find a post of mine that states that..... changing the conversation would suit me fine, the conversation needs a switch in tenor and tone. Finally lets all go back and take a look at your Iran post....yanno the one where you characterised Iran under the Shah as "bright,energetic and vibrant country".....I'm just sitting here wondering why the country you are describing was ripe for revolution.Please name for me the previous examples from history of bright energetic and vibrant countries that experience cataclysmic regime changes.Let me help you here Sanity....zip,nada and none.....The Shah's secret police,trained by our CIA by the way,was a brutal and effective tool in keeping the Shah in power....so to sum up here....You don't really give a shit what conditions these people live under,as long as they will get in bed with the U.S. they are alright with Sanity. That's cool,some might even call that a pragmatic approach to the world.....but for you to dress that up as an enlightened outlook ,where you take the role of a live and let live sort of guy....is just too much bullshit.You are a lying hypocrite who could care less about respecting the culture of others.....that argument coming from your "mouth" is insulting to the intelligence of the reader.

Sanity -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 7:29:03 PM)
I know all about your dogs, thats clear enough, thank you for that. And I know that was a joke on your part, too. Funnier maybe for some than for some others though, I think, but no big deal. Mine was a joke too, hope it didn't land too hard, I apologize if it did. I guess sometimes its hard to tell if someone is hitting back or joking back, or saying something a little bit in between in this format. True, some of my logic and reason follows a roundabout path, I know. It gets a little lost along the way sometimes too, but since I know right where I'm going the conclusions generally shine as you say. Its hard for some people to keep up but it makes sense to me, and if someones genuinely interested I am usually willing to try to break it down a little further as the need arises. You do better than most at following complex thoughts though, I can tell that from a good distance. Yeah, as for the style... thats a work in progress. I'm working on that. My most severe problem is usually focus, us men don't multitask well and I often have two or three things going on so I have to work a little harder sometimes to put my thoughts down in a way that more people can easily follow, and I'm aware that I don't always succeed in that. quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Thomas, relax... it was a joke. I set it up as a joke, I just didn't think it would be you who would help deliver the punchline. It might surprise you to know that I don't think you have been entirely wrong in this thread. Sometimes your conclusions are correct, but the logic and reason you use to get there is often very flawed, so people tend to focus on the "means" rather than the "end." The attacks are often disproportionate to the offense, but that has as much to do with your style as it does with the substance. Just trying to throw you a bone here, as I have intentionally kept my dogs out of this fight.

Blackburn -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/2/2010 8:17:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ~ Fast Questions ~ From a standing position of non-intervention and believing that any Country should be self determining regarding how they choose to live with, kill, or judge and punish each other under their law; a couple of questions come to mind while reading the comments on this situation. Which do you think it more hypocritical; applying 'Western' standards to a distinctively different, autonomous culture, or doing it selectively when the culture's practice does, or doesn't, fit into your political philosophy? When does an 'indigenous people' lose their status regarding having their culture 'protected' and come under scrutiny if someone who happens to voluntarily enter their autonomous domain violates a rule and is subjected to their legal system and consequences? Just curious... Merc, without immersing myself to far into the quagmire of P&R: I don't think applying my standards to another culture is hypocritical. My values are of course superior! Ok, seriously, I like to think my beliefs are reasonably ethical (yeah, that discussion would best be had over a strong cabernet). Am I willing to take severe action based on this beheading? No. Am I willing to entertain a condemning attitude toward a government which holds human life in low regard? Yes. These people are no better than those fucking Texans :) In short: public protest, both domestic and foreign, can be a powerful force in the politics of any nation. Raising my voice to condemn acts which violate my sense of justice is not hypocritical in the least. I will even go out on a limb and give governments a pass when practical reality dictates inconsistent responses (eg. no trade sanctions with China due to human rights issues just because we can't afford it). I see this more as picking only the fights that might have a desired result, not as hypocrisy. I know you are really asking where I get off saying they are wrong and I am right. Is it akin to saying someone with a poo fetish is wrong because I think poo is nasty? No. I believe there are some ethical stances which intrinsically lead to better lives and healthier cultures (poo is not one of them), and I think these standards can be honored in most societies without fundamentally corrupting that culture. Human sacrifice, be it for bread and circuses or for religious observance or for vengeance or for making an example, is something that unnecessarily taints the culture. Yeah, yeah, I know I'm on tenuous ground here - a lesser man would be tempted to be self-righteous about this, but I'm so much better than that (where's my sarcasm font?). It all comes down to whether there really are "better" and "worse" ways to organize human societies. I believe there are, and I feel I should support the stuff that is most likely to improve the human condition. And no, I do not use my own culture as a shining example of niftiness - I just maintain that some of our standards, used correctly, will result in a better world for all concerned. So there... Ok, I've droned on enough. No one here really cares anyway. Back to the center ring: quote: ORIGINAL: subtee P1: That's not what you said before P2: Prove it P1: Why should I prove your words? P2: Because you're the one who brought them up and I remember last summer when you wanted me to provide links about the bullshit you said and then I said, "fine," and then I did and you didn't have anything to say, even after I repeatedly pointed out to you that you had said it and I had proven it with the links and now you're trying to get me to admit it again. P1: You're a (moron, ass, dumbshit, etc.) Oh, sorry, Merc, much as it pains me to say this, P&R Old Guard protocol requires me to say, "You are a fucking moron!" [:D]

brainiacsub -> RE: Our Friends, The Saudis, Will Behead A Tourist Tomorrow (4/3/2010 1:53:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ~ Fast Questions ~ From a standing position of non-intervention and believing that any Country should be self determining regarding how they choose to live with, kill, or judge and punish each other under their law; a couple of questions come to mind while reading the comments on this situation. Which do you think it more hypocritical; applying 'Western' standards to a distinctively different, autonomous culture, or doing it selectively when the culture's practice does, or doesn't, fit into your political philosophy? When does an 'indigenous people' lose their status regarding having their culture 'protected' and come under scrutiny if someone who happens to voluntarily enter their autonomous domain violates a rule and is subjected to their legal system and consequences? Just curious... Alright, I'm finally getting around to answering this... First, let me say that I believe in universal moral principles such as universal human rights. I don't think morality should be based on Religious, Utilitarian or Libertarian ideas, but instead should be grounded in science. Count me among the Immanuel Kant and Sam Harris school of thought (there was a thread on this - "Science and Morality" for reference) believing that morality is based on valuing people as reasoning, sentient beings. It only follows then that cultures that violate universal moral principles are inferior. As this reasoning extrapolates to this thread, I believe that Arab culture - and Islam specifically - are overdue for an enlightenment. Your question referred to "applying Western standards" to autonomous cultures, and I would say that Western standards of morality not grounded in science are subjective and may only apply to Western cultures. At one point in our not too distant past, we burned witches at the stake as well, a moral position grounded in religious values. But we also held a more "scientific" moral value - freedom of thought - which eventually trumped our religious ones and facilitated our own enlightenment. The million dollar question is, "Does the West intervene to facilitate this enlightenment on indigenous cultures?" You take a position of non-intervention, as do I, with a couple of exceptions: 1) In cases of national security or defense, if we must "tame the savages" to protect our own self interests, then I believe it is justified. I am not convinced this exception applies to the situation with the Saudis. After all, we facilitate their barbarism by continuing to purchase their oil. The Saudi royal family has in turn purchased civilization with oil revenues, but has done nothing to use its riches to facilitate its own enlightenment. They need our military to protect them from their own extremists and keep peace in the region. When the oil is gone, they will return to the deserts and the Bedouin culture from which they sprang. 2)There may be times when extraneous circumstances (political, economic, natural disaster, etc) result in fragile cultures deteriorating to lawlessness and violation of universal moral principles. In such cases, the world - not just the West - has an obligation to intervene and restore values where possible (Bosnia, Rawanda, Darfur, Congo come to mind) As for part two of your question, as long as the laws and its applications and consequences do not violate universal moral principles, then indigenous cultures should be allowed to make and enforce their laws as autonomous domains. (Side note - What constitutes universal moral principles is probably a discussion better left to the "Science and Morality" thread, but I will clarify here if asked.)

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875