blonde poker forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13401360

Just seen this on the news. I know human rights wise this is sickening but I wonder how you'd feel as the victim being left disfigured because you've turned down a man's advances

Sick....horrific...

Can't say I agree with retributive punishment.....it isn't Christian..


So sad.....

Hmmmmm pretty sure the phrase "an eye for an eye" is from the bible so to suggest it isn't Christian is a bit laughable really.   As for the case I can see the girls point tbh but I think you have to try and take the moral high ground.

Christian doctrine is built on the concept of eternal punishment if you don't believe in the Christian god.  Seems disproportionate and very unforgiving - almost 'unchristian'.

Do as I say, don't do as I do.

Its all true though mate, god exists :)

Have I read it right? He blinded a woman who turned him down, so as his punishment for blinding the innocent victim he will now be blinded himself?

No pun intended but can't see a problem with this. Big believer in letting the punishment fit the crime, and that's nothing to do with religious beliefs, it's just fair IMO. Although have to say, chopping hands off for stealing seems a little extreme, but in this particular case making the man live the rest of his life in the same state his victim is doing seems pretty fitting.

 

Which one?

As for the punishment in this case, it seems to make a change from other sharia rulings. Women are often punished even when they're victims of crime. Stoned to death for adultery when they are victims of rape, etc.

Mine

 

Vino - the god of good wine?

Not had any booze for nearly 2 weeks  :kiss:

I hesitate to even enter a reply to this, but you've taken it out of context

The phrase  “everlasting punishment” is contained within most of the leading selling English Bible translations. The very foundation of most of modern Christianity is built upon salvation FROM eternal punishment in a place called Hell through faith in Jesus Christ.

Yet the truth of the matter is that the concept of salvation being deliverance from “eternal punishment” is utterly false.

The concept of “everlasting punishment” does NOT exist in either the Hebrew nor the Greek languages of the Christian Scriptures. Yes, it does exist in “some” leading selling English Bible translations, but not in the original languages of the Bible. Many outstanding Christian scholars are beginning to agree with what the early believers in Christ knew that salvation through Jesus Christ was deliverance from DEATH, not from everlasting life being tormented forever. The wages of sin have ALWAYS been death, NEVER everlasting punishment.

and this is what comes from helping my son with his GCSE revision

Clear your diary son.........(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m242/axiemeluv/Smiley/nod.gif)

 

I'll call bullshit on that one.

The idea that the Christian god isn't a spiteful, vengeful god who demands obedience is revisionist nonsense. You're saying hell doesn't exist in the previous versions of the bible? Also, according to Christian doctrine the bible is the word of god, so it either is or isn't or has he changed his mind.

He's hardly a forgiving type throughout the old and new testament, original sin being a fine example. He's meant to be all powerful and yet condemns future generations because of the acts of our supposed ancestors.

So just to clarify things, as it seems bible scholars like to change what's allegedly in the bible according to prevailing moods - you're saying eternal bliss and rapture is for all regardless of how they live their lives, so you don't have to live a christian way to gain entry into heaven?  Seems a bit of a waste of time then, doesn't it?

God is all powerful, and yet can't simply save everyone from hell?

Cuts out all petty crime in an instance.  

I hate the human rights law when it involves crime, as far as I'm concerned, if you break the law, you revoke your human rights.

Is that for health reasons? If so good work :)up

So women should be stoned to death for committing adultery when they are raped if they were in the company of a man who wasn't their chaperone?

You happy with that one too, and sod their human rights?

Was meaning in this country, rather than the extreme views of Sharia law, which in itself, in parts is  total ridiculous, as being raped isn't commitment adultery to any normal human race. 

For example, some-one comes into my house and heads up stairs towards my Wife and Kids with a knife, I stab him - Does he have any rights to sue me?  Should I therefore be jailed and sued for damages for that - protecting my family. 

No, human rights bsh*t protects him rather than me or my family.  Commit a crime (western world) revolke all rights, as you've commited a crime agaisnt another humna being.

Training for across Britain bike ride  >:(   (http://www.smileyhut.com/naughty/bicycle.gif)

If the helicopter flies to the east end of Glasgow, with the spl trophy at 3pm today, then god exists. If it flies to Ayrshire, then he doesn't. Simples.

It's not as cut and dried as all that. What if you steal a potato because your children are starving?

bible = bad novel

i am too hesitant to reply to this....

i agree with this

and this

but its not the same as throwing acid in someones face !! so .....

 

Excellent, you doing it for any charity?

Understand, and a good point, but (without being very ignorant), surely always another way to feed your kids.  Assume the person stealing the potato, didn't walk to the shop naked, so has a jumper, tee-shirt or shoes to sell first...always another way than to commit a crime...just some think it is an easier way.

plz no god talk. I'll listen when there is proof that every religious group hasnt been wasting there time for the last couple of thousand years.

Sigh... what the fuck is wrong with some people... doing that to someone over something so trivial. Just proves the level of mentality we are dealing with here....

Confirmed, No God.

back to the original question. He knew the laws of the land when he threw acid over her face for saying no to his marriage proposals so must face the consequences of their own laws.

Spose what I'm asking is if this happened in this country would it be an acceptable way to sentence someone?

yes

pardon?

You can't be serious.

absolutely never

Errrr.no... because we live in a civilised society and we deal with issues ( no matter how bad or distasteful ) like human beings not animals. As I said we are dealing with a different mentality on both sides of the coin.......   i don't hear calls, for example, child rapists to get jolly rogered etc....

Surely better to just shoot this guy than blind him.

U get sickos everywhere. My initial gut is to agree with u but then having seen the pics of the woman and the fact she sees justice as him getting the same treatment got me thinking. Spose it links in with the argument surrounding the death penalty

Yeah there is about 20 of us doing it. All the proceeds go into one pot and get split 3 ways between Cancer research UK, Parkinson's UK and The British Heart Foundation.

 if a woman is permanently scared and blinded by acid by a man just for turning down his marriage proposal..............

ok fine him £50 and comuity service for 20 hours that seems fair

This


and this.

:)up

Don't be shy then, post up a link!

Will nearer the time mate  :)

No one has said that, and you shouldn't be so lazy with an argument

Just because someone is barbaric, you (in the guise of a penal system and legal response) don't break the laws of the domain in response....

By extension, a similar debate could be had about the death penalty. I could argue for the death penalty far easier than I could blinding a crimial with acid just because he did so

i can not put things into words as good as your goodself  tighty and thus find it hard not lazy

Where is the line drawn, and how is the fallibility of any court system taken into account?  There are miscarriages of justice an when someone is sentenced to a long prison sentence they can't get those years back if they are subsequently pardoned, but at least they aren't maimed/disfigured/dead.

In this case I'm actually shocked that the retributive sentence was given in the first place.  The legal/human rights of women in Iran aren't quite on a par with the rights men enjoy.

however i feel if he can throw acid in her face then she should be allowed to do the same
if somone attacked you
you wife
your child
how would you react....... i know what i would/have done
an eye for an eye

in this case he has admitted his guilt

No one has ever made a confession and subsequently been found to be innocent?

(I'm not saying this man is innocent, I'm talking in general)

i know what your saying  boshi but think if there is enough proof and a confession then he would have to pay the consequences for his actions.

its not like i am saying that if you had an accident in your car and found to be at fault you should be ran over

just this is an extreme case that should be punished in that same way especially in a country that supports that withen its law

There's plenty in the bible that doesn't make sense. Jesus said that the meek will inherit the earth. But out of all the people in the world are the meek really the wisest choice? They probably wouldn't want all the fuss and responsibility. Giving it to the Koreans would make more business sense imo.

So racist against the Meeks.

They have such a good broadband infrastructure too. 

If we allow a criminal and savage act to be punished by a criminal and savage act then the criminals are winning and reducing society to their level.  Policymakers have a moral responsibility to society to ensure that this doesn't happen. 

i was going to leave this ....maybe i should but ill have another go at my explanations !!

i hope not to offend anyone

If we allow a criminal and savage act to be punished by a criminal and savage act then the criminals are winning and reducing society to their level.  Policymakers have a moral responsibility to society to ensure that this doesn't happen


if criminals knew that they would be punished properly would they commit the crime in the first place!
if i was going to get acid in my face i would not throw acid in someone Else's .....if i was going to get a fine and a slap on the wrist i might!( i would never do such a thing because i am a normalish person).

if a rapist or child molester was not allowed onto the nonce's wing in prison and had to serve his time with the general population with everyone knowing his crime would he still commit such a vile act on another human being i don't think so.

my point being the punishment should fit the crime and i think this punishment would be deserved.

"If we allow a criminal and savage act to be punished by a criminal and savage act then the criminals are winning and reducing society to their level.  Policymakers have a moral responsibility to society to ensure that this doesn't happen.  "

I hate this  argument (although it is admittedly common).  This way of thinking is the reason why people have no respect for authority anymore. 

totally agree

+1

Didn't the guy who threw the acid know what punishment he would receive ?  do people who know theres a death sentence for murder not murder?  knowing the punishment doesn't prevent

i am not sure if he knew
but don't you think its a bigger deterrent than what happens in this country today??

Obviously it is not that black and white. IMO no punishment would stop any crimes completely. But i do think an eye for an eye certainly reduces the amount of things such as murders, or would at least in this country where the general intelligence is allegedly somewhat higher of other countries. Obviously for this to remotely work people would at least have to think about the consequences of their actions, something which some people will just never do!

Punishments are rarely a deterrent because criminals don't think they're gonna get caught obv

If the punishment is a deterrent, why do countries that have the death penalty still have high murder rates (that are punishable by death)?

If stealing is punishable by hands being chopped off in a particular country, why are there people walking round with their hands missing if it's such a strong deterrent?

i disagree George
 e.g there have been a few instances and people who have got away with a light talking to and not a slap from me in the last few years because i don't want to spend time away from my family at her Majesty's pleasure!!
if i thought i would not get caught they would have had a fuc~ing good hiding!!

So was prison a lesser deterrent than say having your hands chopped off?  The fear of imprisonment seemed to do the trick.

Far too many attributing factors, in countries where punishments such as hand chopping exist it will largely be down to the fact of lack of education/being so poor that they have to steal to survive. I honestly think there are not too many thieves who just do it for the rush knowing you might be handless if caught.

Prison in this country is not a deterrent. Fact! it's not like the films.

back to the same thing the punishment fitting the crime
if they where going to chop my hands off that is obviously a bigger deterrent but would not suitable punishment for giving someone a slap !!

but if i thought i would get a fine then i would have broke the silly jobsworth tw@ts nose

Erm...

Doesn't matter what the punishment is - scumbags gonna scumbag.

It only acts as a deterrent to those least likely to commit the crime in the first place.

Ok, last part badly worded. Prison for upstanding members of society like us here is of course a deterrent. But for those who wish to commit crime, I can honestly say they don't give it a moments thought. I have 2 friends who have both been inside at least twice, they know full well what will happen if they get caught doing what they are doing, but they don't see it remotely as a deterrent. In all honesty from what they say they actually had fun inside. Obv i tell them they were bummed in the showers etc.

This.

this post has baffled me. maybe I'm not getting your point but how are the criminals winning if we throw acid in this guy's eyes?

+1, this is what i was trying to say..

Theres no right or wrong on this..i agree though that a lots crimes committed do not receive punishments befitting them...however stepping back a couple thousand years in terms of civilisation is not the answer either..

+1
i crap at putting my point across but i guess this is what i thought

New rule of the internet - any argument on any topic can be summarised as 'someone's gonna someone'

Moderators gonna Moderate

'Someone's gonna Something' Surely?

Er, yeah.

Punishment is not just about being a deterrent (although that is the major factor).  It is also for the well being of society from an emotive point of view.  If people see justice being served then it is good for morale and the cohesiveness of society.  If people see burglers getting let off from jail sentences even for their third offence, then people live under a cloud and resent the authorities.  A "what is the point?" attitude can prevail, especially if liberal sentencing is combined with punitive tax rates.

Whereas everyone in Iran is whoopie-doo about their authorities.

His punishment should be worse than what he did to her.

a Geordie with common sense ....wow

Not sure I explained myself that well either to be honest but I suppose what I was getting at was that throwing acid in someones face is a truy horrific thing to do and the fact that one idiot somewhere has done it doesn't mean that we should start doing it as individuals or as a government.  It would debase us as a society to have something like as a punishment and it would be pretty hard to ask anyone to do that (although the victim seems willing in this case).  We have to have standards of behaviour that are considered beyond the pale irrespective of who does them and I personally believe that our punishments should be humane although strict whre neccesary.

with you now. yeah, that all makes sense

good post.

also interested to know whether people who think this type of punishment should be meted out see it as being an alternative to a prison sentence or in addition to. 

the way I see it prison serves three purposes: 1: punishment (in the form of loss of freedom and liberty for x amount of time), 2: rehabilitation (not possible in all cases, but certainly in some and should be attempted where a favourable outcome may be expected) and 3: protection for society by keeping the individual in a secure environment where there is a high risk that they may reoffend.

if we decided the best form of punishment in this case was throwing acid over the perpetrator's face, then leaving him to it, I can't see what has really been usefully achieved, other than an act of vengeance.

Revenge is an act of passion; vengeance of justice. Injuries are revenged; crimes are avenged.

Samuel Johnson