obfuscator

No, it is completely irrelevant. It's an example of the fallacy ad hominem, which is using irrelevant information in an attempt to defame character in order to win an argument. The character of the church is relevant in the current string of discussions as to whether the church should try to force beliefs on people. If the church itself is of bad character, it has no place telling others how to live their lives, which is the side I am arguing from. I would like to bring in the Inquisitions and some other things as well, but we're already somewhat off topic, and I have a penchant for extending that... <_< >­­_> No it is not. That's all there is to it. In a civilized debate, one does not use ad hominen attacks. That's it. EDIT: Yeah, all this discussion would be much better suited to the other thread.

No, it is completely irrelevant. It's an example of the fallacy ad hominem, which is using irrelevant information in an attempt to defame character in order to win an argument. That's like saying that Bill Clinton never did anything good as president because he had a sex scandal, or that all Nirvana music is bad because Kurt Cobain killed himself.

Not to mention the "one in twenty are pedophiles" is a completely irrelevant ad hominem. But hey, I'm used to it.

That's not exactly relevant. But tell me this - if you were to go around your school, or work, proclaiming that incest and bestiality are normal and one should be able to participate in them, how do you think you'd be treated? No, no, of course I get what you meant and I agree. I just wondered why you thought those two in particular were morally bad. Then we'd be getting off topic ;)

That's not exactly relevant. But tell me this - if you were to go around your school, or work, proclaiming that incest and bestiality are normal and one should be able to participate in them, how do you think you'd be treated?

[honestquestion]Could you give us some examples (just so I know whether what I'm thinking is right)? [/honestquestion] Well, when I say "belief forcing", what I mean is that there's a certain set of beliefs that's considered "acceptable", and anyone outside of that is shunned. For example - I believe abortion is murder, but apparently that's not an acceptable belief. I will be and have been constantly ridiculed for it in every facet of life, by individuals, the media, etc. I also believe words shouldn't be off limits. I don't believe political correctness serves the best interests of society, but if I say so, I'll be shunned. Gay Straight Alliances mandated in catholic schools. What happened to freedom of religion? A sports commentator fired because he had the audacity to say the exact words "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman". What happened to freedom of speech? A knights of columbus (catholic organization) sued successfully because they refused to host a gay marriage reception. Freedom of religion, yet again.. Freedom in theory, but only in practice if you want to conform to the flavor of the month. For example, I believe incest, bestiality and some degree of pedophilia will be legal. If I try to make a defense for those now (although I find them all morally deplorable), I'll be ridiculed. But once they become the flavor of the month (which is slowly happening), popular opinion will shift and the way we look at those things now will be seen the exact same way as someone who thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.

There's plenty of "belief forcing" that happens regularly in our society. It just goes according to popular opinion so most people don't care.

So you think that just because of some vague statistic the system should be avoided altogether? Has it occurred to you as well that eggs could very well get his ass kicked and compound the problem?

What happened is sexual assault. This is against the law and as a result can be prosecuted as such.

Pretty inconsequential to be honest. But it makes sense.

Why not? Because it won't actually solve the problem, it'll get the OP in further trouble, and they haven't even tried the correct way to solve the problem. Thinking violence is the immediate solution is a fifth grade mentality.

Physical confrontation is not the right way to go about solving this. Period.

Of course, but I can sympathize with the King's situation. Even if he wants to reform, the cultural norms make it very difficult. It's easy for us to say "he's not doing enough", but we're here in north america, sitting in armchairs. I'd hazard a guess that if we were in his position we wouldn't realistically be able to do much more than he's done already. And I'd say this is more of a situation where "does the means justify the end?" :P

But shouldn't he still be applauded to some degree for instituting those measures, regardless of his intention?

If you're against the death penalty, how can you not care if someone is put to death? Hey, if I had my way, he wouldn't be put to death. But I'm not going to shed any tears over a tyrant family that has contributed money towards terrorism and violence -- perhaps not directly, but they look the other way while the other wealthy families do it. The same goes for Stalin, Hitler, Gaddafi or any other bastard of the like. So you oppose the death penalty in theory, but accept it in practice?

Yes, I think I posted earlier about the lack of a real criminal code, only the "moral" one imposed by the committees you mentioned. But I don't think we really disagree about this...

If you're against the death penalty, how can you not care if someone is put to death?

From what I've heard this king wants to modernize but is being held back by the clerics.

Yes but bly, what i'm saying is that the secular laws are complicit in that enforcement.

Well bear in mind there isn't a blanket ban on headshots, the head just can't be the "primary point of contact". That's why Phaneuf didn't get a suspension for either of his hits (although he did get a penalty, that seems to be the refs getting used to the new rule). And yeah, it will probably calm down a bit as the season goes on.

... and that is where you're wrong again. After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law. I'm talking about the country law, not the sharia law. Of course, the two are quite tightly bound together..

Oh yeah, completely forgot about that lol. Brutal hit during the Chicago-Detroit game last night, Shanahan is going to be very busy this year it seems...

Sound advice.

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license. So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.