Yet another reason why Pakistan should be wiped off the map

Some nations and cultures simply don't deserve to exist. They should be eradicated entirely. Not the people, but the nations and cultures.

More in Mexico...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rascists gang rape "black" women/girls for being black, but I don't see you getting excited over that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People who do that anywhere should be wiped out. The difference is that in Pakistan and a several other countries we see cultures which condone such activities.

 

I just think you're being a leetle OTT.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, and I think people who support public execution should be killed. Oh wait, that would mean assasinating the President of America.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I've never been too fond of the death penalty either.

 

Oh, the death penalty itself is a whole other issue.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My point is, there's a difference between disagreeing with something, and wanting everyone who doesn't see it from your point of view, dead.

 

Gang-rape is not merely a difference of opinion. These people see it as a perfectly valid method of social control. Their opinions are worth far less than the safety and honour of those women. Their opinions are absolutely worthless. Such a culture should be wiped out. Philosophy is what you get to worry about when everyone is alive and safe.

 

Some people might think the death penalty is a valid method of social control. Or caning children. It depends on your background, who you are, etc.

 

Yes, indeed, everyone has their own values and ethics. And I have mine. In mine, those bastards should be wiped out.

To put it bluntly, the end result is that we are all different, but WE have the guns and the money, and Pakistan has a few nukes.

 

kick a dog while it's down?

 

I have gone before into subjects such as anti-social behaviour and absolute morals based on our evolution. Think about the role of gang-rape in our evolution. To cut it short, basically, gang-rape as social control is anti-human. Therefore wrong in any language.

PS: I'll write up some big-arse essay on this idea of moral absolutes some day.

 

A few comments on the topic

Adam

That formula is such a successful one, isn't it? Let me know when you've got that strategy worked out.

Christians should have been wiped out, in that sense. Of course, if we look at history, where does that put us? Would England have become a global power? Would its might have extended, for instance, to the settlement of Australia?

But death sure is effective, isn't it?

Which doesn't speak toward a reasonable end result, does it? Might is right? Anyone who complains about US policy ought to know that might is right is our excuse for anything, and does the world accept that? Doesn't seem so. It gets the US flak every time we go forth. But then again, we could leave this one to Australia and its nuclear arsenal.

I don't think anyone will argue with this.

Without sarcasm, Adam, I would love to see an objective consideration of moral absolutism in any of its forms.\

Firefly

Is it really? At least the death penalty pretends to have due process attached to it. But aside from that comes the consideration of destruction in response to perceived moral depravity.

I'll raise a glass to that. People, no matter who they are, should not be treated as trash or toys, to be thrown out and destroyed when they are unsatisfactory.

But as long as the US is mixing it up around the world, why not put our foot down? I would love to see us throw a major international tantrum based on something as random as this human-rights travesty.

I think we need to send the Afghani farmers over to see the Pakistani judges. Maybe after a little recreation, they'll think more clearly instead of manifest their rage through their obsessions.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tiassa can always stir the pot so well.

I will say that death has proved to be effective as a deterrent from time immortal till now. We are not the first society to deal with crime, murder, and rape. Go back as far as there are written records and you will find someone having to deal with it. No truly widespread, totally effective method has been devised to date. No matter the penalty there are some that feel they can do it and get away without suffering the penalties involved. As long as that mentality exists we will have need of punishment. If it were removed there would still be crimes of passion where the perpetuator is totally oblivious to what the consequences of his/her act will be. The death penalty, or any other punishment, is a result of whatever society trying to deal with a difficult problem. When you look at the foofaraw surrounding it, you find proponents disagreeing with the method, even within our own society, as to whether it is right or not. Death is the final solution. The one that guarantees that the perpetuator will never harm another fellow being again.

While it is easy to put down another society for their acts because they do not do as we do, I am not sure that we have the right to do so.

I am saying that, " I do not agree with gang rape as a punishment." But for their society apparently it works. They have a behavior that has been described as criminal and a punishment that has been deemed for that act. The members of that society know that they can face that punishment for that act. Is that not in essence what we do with courts? We may take issue with the method of punishment or even if it is a crime within the light of our society but that does not mean that it is an effective method to deal with a crime or that for their society it is a crime.

It is easy to feel superior because that is not the way we do it. Of necessity, someone has to deem the punishment and carry out the sentence. It is no different for our own society. Perhaps we have a case of our noses being to long.

 

Tiassa

Tiassa, I would point out that several times in just the last deacde we have seen entire nations and cultures turned upside-down, while their people survive. Bosnia, East Timor, Afghanistan. In those cases, I would say that might most definitely did make right.

Maybe a different world history would be a better history. Who knows?

Death certainly is effective. Although I disapprove of killing in general, I realise it is indeed quite reasonable in some cases. Please don't say it isn't, since you admitted once that one of your personal heroes was an attempted murderer.

I don't think you need to play upon the USA-martyr complex again, all the US-bashing and such. Not necessary.

Actually I would not be surprised if Australia possessed nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. We did, after all, send otherwise useless submarines to Desert Storm, and have them sitting off the coasts of China, Indonesia, and in the Persian Gulf. About 15 years ago there was a plan put before Parliament to equip our subs with such weapons, but the entire project went silent in about two weeks. Then we are also a major producer of uranium. Merely speculation.

I've been meaning to write such an essay for aaagggeeesss, but I never get around to it. I've included little bits of the concept in other things, but never stuck it all together.

 

hey all
ive only skimmed quickly and a unanswered question has come to mind and i dare anyone to PROPOSE an answer.

DEATH PENALTY.... OK.... SO IT HAPPENS
someone is killed as it has happened in the past
therefor someone is judged and executed for it!
then as it has happened
the person was innocent.
WHO IS IT THAT GETS TO KILL/EXECUTE
THE PERSON WHO KILLED/(NOW murdered) the wrong person?

fare is fare.... rite???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

tiassa: I was just saying that I wasn't totally for or against the death penalty, but giving my views would be off topic, but I just thought that the death penalty to be used lightly (or Adam's views on obliterating "not the people, but the nations and cultures" also seems ... a bit extreme).

 

Do you have any reasonable objections to eradicating cultures which consistently screw people over in the worst possible ways?

 

Firstly I think you should define and differ the terms culture, nations and people.

Then I think you should tell me who, how and why someone has the right to take away such a multitude of lives.

Then explain how I was being unreasonable before.

And IMO: I object to anyone taking the life of another sentient being, unless it is exclusively to help them, and also not all the people in that culture that support gang rape. So if you "eradicated" the entire culture then that would be outright and unjustified murder in some cases. Even if you're gonna argue the end justiufies the means.

 

I'm not advocating the killing of people, only the eradication of a culture.

University fraternaties are occasionally in trouble for raping drunk girls at their parties. The universities promise, after these things hit the news, to wipe out such behaviour. They don't go around killing students, they simply try to wipe out the culture of drunken abuse. Do you think such efforts by a university are wrong?

No, I don't mean to imply you were unreasonable before, i just wish to see some good objections to the general idea of wiping our anti-social or anti-human cultures.