Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
Max Power said:
I think with that I proved my point. Whatever.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Max Power said:
Hagbard Celine said:I take offense here. I don't do drugs. I gave up reefer when I graduated highschool and I haven't touched the stuff since. It takes a lot of will power to not smoke, especially living in a college town like Athens, Georgia where I am constantly given the chance to smoke it. Shove your assumptions about me where the sun don't shine genius.
Hagbard Celine said:I've been waiting for someone to bring up the abortion issue with me again. It's been awhile and I've since changed my mind on the issue. I mulled the issue over and over in my brain and I decided that I think abortions are equal to murder. I'm now anti death penalty and anti abortion, but I'm still conflicted about the woman's right to choose during the first and second trimester...I'm not a woman, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.
Hagbard Celine said:They obviously don't value human life if they are so willing to extinguish it at the drop of a proverbial hat. If someone is sentenced to die, they should have at least committed some kind of act in which they harmed someone else. If he had committed a violent crime, I might be able to understand why he is being put to death, but the guy just had some drugs...Is that worth killing him? No IMO.
Max Power said:Until proven guilty
No I don't.LuvRPgrl said:You really are brain dead arent you? Try to follow
You claim the SOVEREIGNTY of Singapore is insignificant.
Yeah. Many other countries are led by men who kill their own people and we haven't invaded them. Iraq didn't attack us, but we invaded it anyway. Should we invade every sovereign nation that kills its own people? Wouldn't that amount to being the world's police? And doesn't a policy like that undermine the sovereignty of other nations? I don't think the military can stretch that far anyway.Yet, one of the arguements for not invading Iraq, and allowing the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to continue by Saddam, is because it is a SOVEREIGN nation.
No, you're putting words in my mouth--stupid words at that--stop it.According to you then, SOVEREIGNTY doesnt matter if ONE person is unjustly being executed
No, there's no double standard. You're not going to find one. The only way you'll find a double standard in what I've written is if you make it up like you have here and like you tend to do on most threads. Your logic is garbage and your arguments are contrived. I haven't been advocating invading Indonesia. I haven't mentioned their sovereignty. I haven't said anything about changing their laws either. You have. All I'm saying is that they are savages because they murder people over small offenses and hence do not value human life. Come back to me when you have something real.BUT, in Iraq, SOVEREIGNTY matters, even though hundreds of thousands are being murdered (oh, and they didnt even break drug laws!)
LuvRPgrl said:The power Hitler gained to carry out the holocaust was not gained democratically.
So what are you saying, the people of Singapore should abandon their law because other people feel its unjust? Well, wouldnt that create a bit of a problem? I mean, now what other laws should they abandon? How will their lawmakers have any credibility anymore when it has now been decided they create unjust laws, cuz MAX and Hag said so. When will you become their benevolent dictator? Will you allow abortion to be legal? Do you think partial birth abortion is a bit "unjust" a punishment to the almost born child?
Hagbard Celine said:No I don't..
Hagbard Celine said:Yeah. Many other countries are led by men who kill their own people and we haven't invaded them. Iraq didn't attack us, but we invaded it anyway. Should we invade every sovereign nation that kills its own people? Wouldn't that amount to being the world's police? And doesn't a policy like that undermine the sovereignty of other nations? I don't think the military can stretch that far anyway..
Hagbard Celine said:No, you're putting words in my mouth--stupid words at that--stop it..
Hagbard Celine said:I haven't said anything about changing their laws either. You have. Come back to me when you have something real.
Bonnie said:Think about that for a moment, this fits in perfectly with the mindset that other countries have the right to tell us what to do right?? Liberals think France et all should influence our SCOTUS and how we conduct foreign policy for dealing with terrorism attacks.......Your wasting your time here with logic
Hagbard Celine said:No, I don't have to do what Cookie tells me to do. Read the context of the post before you open your mouth YOU FRICKIN' GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I don't. I said their law is barbaric and unjust. That has nothing to do with their sovereignty. You're wrong and you're beating a dead horse.LuvRPgrl said:Yes you do, cuz you think the law shouldnt be carried out.
You said...What the hell does that have to do with anything" If I point out two situations where you are INCONSISTENT, then the others are not needed.
If the reason for being in Iraq has miraculously changed from "finding WMDs" to "liberating Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam," why don't we invade every "sovereign" nation that mistreats it's citizens? You're obviously confused. You're arguing for the Iraq war, which totally undermines the sovereignty of Saddam's government, but you are against saving a guy from being murdered for simply having drugs in his bag because it would "undermine Indonesia's sovereignty?" You've got two conflicting arguments going here...you might want to regroup.Yet, one of the arguements for not invading Iraq, and allowing the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to continue by Saddam, is because it is a SOVEREIGN nation.
All taken out of context with contrived arguments tagged on willy nilly.Nope, your own words, as you will see .....
Original, intended context: Response to Gem's post in which she farcically listed reasons for not trying to help save this man from an unjust execution such as,I think human rights trumps any idiotic politics that might come up.
She's trying to make me and the others arguing to save this man from savages who want his blood look foolish by trying to make it seem like the act of appealing to Singapore to spare this man's life is comparable to spreading capitalist consumerism where it is not wanted. Does anyone here disagree that human rights are more important than petty politics?Gem said:I'm afraid that if I interfered with another society's culture by telling them what not to execute this man...many people in this country and others would brand me as an intolerant, jingoistic, American imperialist spreading my incideous, capitalistic American consumer culture to nations that have no desire to hear my opinions or to be influenced by my beliefs on what justice should be.
Original, intended context: "Any law that is cruel and unjust should be banned." Does anyone here disagree? Here in the US and in the rest of the civilized world, unjust laws are repealed or rewritten. What makes Indonesians exempt from going through the same process? The fact that some of them still wear loin cloths and live in trees? If anything, I think this is a reason to expedite the process!or this:
I think any law that is cruel and unjust should be banned.
Original, intended context: Who disagrees that throwing rocks at women and killing them for committing adultery or for talking back to their husbands or for being seen in public unaccompanied by a man is barbaric? Who disagrees that strapping a bomb to yourself and killing innocent people so that you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven is barbaric? Any takers? You can't keep a straight face and tell me that these people aren't savages.Kathianne said:and this:
So screw the Islamic law, is that what you are saying?
The unjust, barbaric ones, yes.
Original, intended context: They shouldn't kill people for trivial offenses. Who disagrees? If you do, go live with them and send us updates on how great it is in Indonesia.and this:
They should run it according to the rules of common decency, i.e. not killing people willy nilly for trivial offenses.
Hagbard Celine said:No, I don't. I said their law is barbaric and unjust. That has nothing to do with their sovereignty. You're wrong and you're beating a dead horse.
You said... If the reason for being in Iraq has miraculously changed from "finding WMDs" to "liberating Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam," why don't we invade every "sovereign" nation that mistreats it's citizens? You're obviously confused. You're arguing for the Iraq war, which totally undermines the sovereignty of Saddam's government, but you are against saving a guy from being murdered for simply having drugs in his bag because it would "undermine Indonesia's sovereignty?" You've got two conflicting arguments going here...you might want to regroup.
All taken out of context with contrived arguments tagged on willy nilly.
Original, intended context: Response to Gem's post in which she farcically listed reasons for not trying to help save this man from an unjust execution such as, She's trying to make me and the others arguing to save this man from savages who want his blood look foolish by trying to make it seem like the act of appealing to Singapore to spare this man's life is comparable to spreading capitalist consumerism where it is not wanted. Does anyone here disagree that human rights are more important than petty politics?
Contrived, Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard Celine is calling for the hostile takeover of Indonesia and is questioning the legitimacy of Indonesian sovereignty.
Original, intended context: "Any law that is cruel and unjust should be banned." Does anyone here disagree? Here in the US and in the rest of the civilized world, unjust laws are repealed or rewritten. What makes Indonesians exempt from going through the same process? The fact that some of them still wear loin cloths and live in trees? If anything, I think this is a reason to expedite the process!
Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard hates Indonesians and wants to see their government topple in a glorious coup executed by US military police.
Original, intended context: Who disagrees that throwing rocks at women and killing them for committing adultery or for talking back to their husbands or for being seen in public unaccompanied by a man is barbaric? Who disagrees that strapping a bomb to yourself and killing innocent people so that you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven is barbaric? Any takers? You can't keep a straight face and tell me that these people aren't savages.
Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: HC is crazy because he thinks Islamic Shariah laws that undermine the rights of women and devalue human life should be rethunk. Furthermore, this is direct evidence that HC is calling for the fall of Indonesia and is calling for their sovereignty to be ruled illegitimate.
Original, intended context: They shouldn't kill people for trivial offenses. Who disagrees? If you do, go live with them and send us updates on how great it is in Indonesia.
Contrived Luvergirl interpretation: Hagbard Celine is crazy because he doesn't think executing people for trivial offenses and using corporal punishment for minor legal violations is rational behavior. What a crazy liberal.
manu1959 said:if i post a sign outside my house that says:
"if you break into my house i will shoot you dead"
and you read the sign and break into my house and i shoot you dead.
who's fault is it that you are dead?
Alright. I'll take your lack of a valid retort as an omission of defeat.LuvRPgrl said:hahahhahahhaha
talk about twisting and turning...hahhahahahhahahahahah
Hagbard Celine said:If the reason for being in Iraq has miraculously changed from "finding WMDs" to "liberating Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam," why don't we invade every "sovereign" nation that mistreats it's citizens? You're obviously confused. You're arguing for the Iraq war, which totally undermines the sovereignty of Saddam's government, but you are against saving a guy from being murdered for simply having drugs in his bag because it would "undermine Indonesia's sovereignty?" You've got two conflicting arguments going here...you might want to regroup.
theHawk said:I was in the military when the Iraq war started. From day one the Mission was given to the entire military. It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the Day ONE, not several months later. The mission was destroy the Iraqi army, remove Saddam, search for WMD, and set up a democracy. You're entire arguement is baseless, as you have demonstrated you are either ignorant of these facts, or you know them but choose to lie to push your agenda. I'm guessing its the latter.
Otherwise, I don't understand the point of most of this thread. Some drug dealer is getting executed. Its a little excessive by our standards yes. But who said life was fair.
Hagbard Celine said:Alright. I'll take your lack of a valid retort as an omission of defeat.
Hagbard Celine said:Alright. I'll take your lack of a valid retort as an omission of defeat.