Syrian Extremists Cut Off A Man's Hand As Punishme
HandsomeDon 2014/03/02 07:59
HandsomeDon 2014/03/02 07:59
A group of Syrian Islamist militants posted a series of photographs of a man having his hand cut off in a live-update on Twitter.
The live-feed of the amputation, which was carried out in the northern town of Maskanah, near Aleppo, was re-tweeted by several Jihadi social media channels.
The group responsible, militant organisation ISIS - Islamist State in Iraq and Syria - claimed the man, an alleged thief, had requested to be punished in this way.
The live-feed of the amputation, which was carried out in the northern town of Maskanah, near Aleppo, was re-tweeted by several Jihadi social media channels.
The group responsible, militant organisation ISIS - Islamist State in Iraq and Syria - claimed the man, an alleged thief, had requested to be punished in this way.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 08:02
Bear in mind that you're referring to a religions Holy text and that whether or not you agree with it, like it or hate and even whether or not you follow the faith it remains (as with any other religions Holy text) at the very least worthy of a modicum of respect.
Its a "possible meaning" in the same way that a shark attack in the middle of a desert is a possibility, not a likely one but still ... science teaches all things are possible, although some are just so infinitely improbable as to render them virtually impossible.
Trust me, I don't have to "stretch" anything to see whats there, plain as day. You're doing quite a bit of stretching though, I mean there's a reason they are called extremists and zealots. Its because they aren't part of the mainstream, the mainstream always forms the majority in any society. Also the only example noted in the source of the punishment being carried out involves "my" metaphorical interpretation, never once is an example noted of the alternative or even mentioned as having taken place, a fact that is conveniently ignored. Yet I'm the one stretching my imagination?
outlaw:
So literally cutting off hands is one of the possible understandings. It's settled then. That's what was done in this case. You can stretch your imagination and derive your "metaphorical meanings" all you want, but as long as physically cutting off hands is ONE of the possible understandings, how can you blame anyone for doing it? [Why the fuck does god talk in metaphors anyway? "cut off their hands" is not even a clever metaphor.]
If the text is so vague that every verse could have multiple meanings, i would argue that is reason enough to reject and bypass it altogether when making laws. But apparently that wont happen. The Sultan of Brunei just announced he's going to impose amputation (the literal one, not cutting off relationship) as a punishment for theft, along with the baker's choice of other "perceived" evils of islam.
So literally cutting off hands is one of the possible understandings. It's settled then. That's what was done in this case. You can stretch your imagination and derive your "metaphorical meanings" all you want, but as long as physically cutting off hands is ONE of the possible understandings, how can you blame anyone for doing it? [Why the fuck does god talk in metaphors anyway? "cut off their hands" is not even a clever metaphor.]
If the text is so vague that every verse could have multiple meanings, i would argue that is reason enough to reject and bypass it altogether when making laws. But apparently that wont happen. The Sultan of Brunei just announced he's going to impose amputation (the literal one, not cutting off relationship) as a punishment for theft, along with the baker's choice of other "perceived" evils of islam.
Bear in mind that you're referring to a religions Holy text and that whether or not you agree with it, like it or hate and even whether or not you follow the faith it remains (as with any other religions Holy text) at the very least worthy of a modicum of respect.
Its a "possible meaning" in the same way that a shark attack in the middle of a desert is a possibility, not a likely one but still ... science teaches all things are possible, although some are just so infinitely improbable as to render them virtually impossible.
Trust me, I don't have to "stretch" anything to see whats there, plain as day. You're doing quite a bit of stretching though, I mean there's a reason they are called extremists and zealots. Its because they aren't part of the mainstream, the mainstream always forms the majority in any society. Also the only example noted in the source of the punishment being carried out involves "my" metaphorical interpretation, never once is an example noted of the alternative or even mentioned as having taken place, a fact that is conveniently ignored. Yet I'm the one stretching my imagination?
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 08:18
2 vs. 12 is the number of times that word refers to literal vs. metaphoric meaning receptively in other parts of the Qur'an. It appears 14 times, only twice is it ever meant literally. Hence 2 vs. 12.
We will agree on one thing I think, that society should be careful when religious law strongly influences secular law. Based on examples taken from history across the world, theocracies (religious governments) don't generally have the best track records.
outlaw:
You said there are three possible ways "cut off their hands" can be interpreted. So how is any one of those possibilities a "proven fact"? That's why i use "may". I know the people who will interpret it to mean literal amputation will always be a small minority. But if literal amputation CAN be one of the possibilities, then on what basis are we going to conclude that those 2 votes are wrong and 12 right? As long as we don't have a standard interpretation to refer to, which we KNOW BEYOND DOUBT is true, there is room for all possible interpretations to exist and for people to apply them.
The discussion isn't about the literary merits of Quran, it's about compatibility of its ancient laws with modern times. I am not criticizing the Quran for being what it actually is, or all religious texts are for that matter. A man-made set of ancient laws and random nonsense written in the form of poetry and bad metaphors, interspersed with divine threats and demands that the divine arse be kissed. I understand these texts have their place in literature, history, etc. I'm pretty sure Arabic is a beautiful language but "several layers of meaning" is the very thing that worries me when people try to base laws on this stuff.
You said there are three possible ways "cut off their hands" can be interpreted. So how is any one of those possibilities a "proven fact"? That's why i use "may". I know the people who will interpret it to mean literal amputation will always be a small minority. But if literal amputation CAN be one of the possibilities, then on what basis are we going to conclude that those 2 votes are wrong and 12 right? As long as we don't have a standard interpretation to refer to, which we KNOW BEYOND DOUBT is true, there is room for all possible interpretations to exist and for people to apply them.
The discussion isn't about the literary merits of Quran, it's about compatibility of its ancient laws with modern times. I am not criticizing the Quran for being what it actually is, or all religious texts are for that matter. A man-made set of ancient laws and random nonsense written in the form of poetry and bad metaphors, interspersed with divine threats and demands that the divine arse be kissed. I understand these texts have their place in literature, history, etc. I'm pretty sure Arabic is a beautiful language but "several layers of meaning" is the very thing that worries me when people try to base laws on this stuff.
2 vs. 12 is the number of times that word refers to literal vs. metaphoric meaning receptively in other parts of the Qur'an. It appears 14 times, only twice is it ever meant literally. Hence 2 vs. 12.
We will agree on one thing I think, that society should be careful when religious law strongly influences secular law. Based on examples taken from history across the world, theocracies (religious governments) don't generally have the best track records.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 08:22
If my secretary leaves for lunch and tells me she'll see me later and every time in the past she has returned within 30-45 minutes if she suddenly returns 1 week later because "later" CAN mean a week later I'm going to be very annoyed. CAN doesn't necessary mean DOES.
If my secretary leaves for lunch and tells me she'll see me later and every time in the past she has returned within 30-45 minutes if she suddenly returns 1 week later because "later" CAN mean a week later I'm going to be very annoyed. CAN doesn't necessary mean DOES.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 12:10
India must be a nice place to work then, no? Well nice enough as an employee not so much as an employer :-P
outlaw: CAN is all we need over here at the theft amputation facility. CAN is closer to DOES than it is to DOES NOT. If you fire your secretary, her lawyer would tell you that her patterns don't matter at all and if you gave her permission to come back "later", she is perfectly within her rights to come back 1 week later.
India must be a nice place to work then, no? Well nice enough as an employee not so much as an employer :-P
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 12:30
Why don't you try saying a prayer Tanuki, I'll find a desert to stand in, if a shark bites my head off I'll concede to your point. Until then you'll have to rely on proof or drop a fact or two to support your argument, until then I think I'll stick to my guns.
"Stupid" would be believing that although in the vast majority of cases its metaphorical its still more likely to be figurative in this case. Lets also completely ignore the fact that the criminals worked off their debts to the victim, ever tried doing anything kind of work without hands? Then there's also the fact that although there were only 2 criminals, 3 pairs of hands are "cut" and before you even think of suggesting it, there were only 2 and no one other than those 2 were punished. In order to read this literally am I supposed to believe that one of the criminals had an extra pair of hands? This is never mentioned, you'd think a 4 armed man would stand out, you know be something worth mentioning but no, not one mention.
outlaw:
I don't consider them any more worth of respect than other works of fiction. If you find my lack of respect offensive, we can stop here.
Religion teaches that if you pray hard enough and have faith, a shark CAN appear in the middle of the desert and bite your head off.
Read your own post xiao, you gave me three possible meanings for the verse. It's stupid to assume that a metaphorical meaning is more probable than the literal one. Does the verse contain a footnote saying "Gods tryna be all metaphorical here n shxt. Read between the lines."? How do you decide which verse is literal and which metaphorical? Again seems to be a matter of convenience.
Come on, it's hardly "plain as day" if you have to go through the entire Quran first and see how many times that exact word was used and in what context. Then once you count the number of instances to see which meaning was used the maximum number of times, you still can't be sure if THAT's the meaning which applies here. Because there's no rule that says that just because the arabic word for "cut" is used X number of times to mean "cut off relationship with", that it cannot possibly be used to mean "literally cut off", especially when it precedes the words "hands". The literal meaning is what's plain as day here, and the metaphorical one is arrived at through a lot of hard work and wishful thinking. I welcome the intention here though. It's definitely good. But eventually i hope people will acknowledge that these old texts will have to be bypassed altogether when forming laws in the 21st century.
P.S. The joseph example is a good argument, but I'm not sure if there's any rule that for a quranic law to be applied a certain way, there has to be a precedent. Plus I'm not sure of the specifics. There are other conditions that have to be fulfilled so I don't know why joseph was allowed to keep his hands. Maybe he got a good lawyer. Someone like you who managed to convince/confuse the judges.
I don't consider them any more worth of respect than other works of fiction. If you find my lack of respect offensive, we can stop here.
Religion teaches that if you pray hard enough and have faith, a shark CAN appear in the middle of the desert and bite your head off.
Read your own post xiao, you gave me three possible meanings for the verse. It's stupid to assume that a metaphorical meaning is more probable than the literal one. Does the verse contain a footnote saying "Gods tryna be all metaphorical here n shxt. Read between the lines."? How do you decide which verse is literal and which metaphorical? Again seems to be a matter of convenience.
Come on, it's hardly "plain as day" if you have to go through the entire Quran first and see how many times that exact word was used and in what context. Then once you count the number of instances to see which meaning was used the maximum number of times, you still can't be sure if THAT's the meaning which applies here. Because there's no rule that says that just because the arabic word for "cut" is used X number of times to mean "cut off relationship with", that it cannot possibly be used to mean "literally cut off", especially when it precedes the words "hands". The literal meaning is what's plain as day here, and the metaphorical one is arrived at through a lot of hard work and wishful thinking. I welcome the intention here though. It's definitely good. But eventually i hope people will acknowledge that these old texts will have to be bypassed altogether when forming laws in the 21st century.
P.S. The joseph example is a good argument, but I'm not sure if there's any rule that for a quranic law to be applied a certain way, there has to be a precedent. Plus I'm not sure of the specifics. There are other conditions that have to be fulfilled so I don't know why joseph was allowed to keep his hands. Maybe he got a good lawyer. Someone like you who managed to convince/confuse the judges.
Why don't you try saying a prayer Tanuki, I'll find a desert to stand in, if a shark bites my head off I'll concede to your point. Until then you'll have to rely on proof or drop a fact or two to support your argument, until then I think I'll stick to my guns.
"Stupid" would be believing that although in the vast majority of cases its metaphorical its still more likely to be figurative in this case. Lets also completely ignore the fact that the criminals worked off their debts to the victim, ever tried doing anything kind of work without hands? Then there's also the fact that although there were only 2 criminals, 3 pairs of hands are "cut" and before you even think of suggesting it, there were only 2 and no one other than those 2 were punished. In order to read this literally am I supposed to believe that one of the criminals had an extra pair of hands? This is never mentioned, you'd think a 4 armed man would stand out, you know be something worth mentioning but no, not one mention.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 12:33
A grade school pass in any language of your choice would tell you otherwise. Words regardless of the language never have one meaning that applies in any and all cases, you disagree? Then provide supporting facts or withdraw the statement.
outlaw:
The fact that someone took the trouble of counting and comparing the literal vs metaphorical meanings is itself proof that it's a debatable issue. I can see why this would be important to a theologist trying to work out all the possibilities. But it sounds like a weird self-invented rule that if the number of literal meanings is less than metaphorical meanings, "team metaphors wins" and we have to discard all the literal meanings. A word means what it means, even if it's 1 to 100 against metaphorical meanings.
The fact that someone took the trouble of counting and comparing the literal vs metaphorical meanings is itself proof that it's a debatable issue. I can see why this would be important to a theologist trying to work out all the possibilities. But it sounds like a weird self-invented rule that if the number of literal meanings is less than metaphorical meanings, "team metaphors wins" and we have to discard all the literal meanings. A word means what it means, even if it's 1 to 100 against metaphorical meanings.
A grade school pass in any language of your choice would tell you otherwise. Words regardless of the language never have one meaning that applies in any and all cases, you disagree? Then provide supporting facts or withdraw the statement.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 12:45
You sound almost as bad as they do, its not an either / or situation. No one needs to be brow beaten into believing what the other does. The future keeps coming, whether 100% of the world believes in 1 religion or 0%. You don't believe, that's perfectly valid in my books, they do and that's equally valid. Religious interference in politics and legislature is never a good idea but its hardly the greatest legislative peril of our age, if human civilization comes crashing down because of legislative misconduct religion isn't going to be to blame. Its more likely going to be because of ignorance and short-sightedness, a crusade against that would definitely be something I could get behind.
outlaw: I guess the bottom line here is that even if the justifications zealots come up with are total bullshxt, it's easy enough for them to do this and manage to sound convincing to others of their ilk when the text itself is so vague. But the text gets its credibility as a valid basis for law from the moderate majority who have good intentions but for some reason their understanding of the religion isn't translating into actual laws. So instead of reinterpreting vague verses and trying to make them usable for this day and age, why don't the moderates make more of an effort to isolate religion from matters of state altogether? Moderates don't seem as concerned about the (alleged) misinterpretations of the extremists of their own religions, but get their panties in a twist everyone an "outsider" questions their religion.
You sound almost as bad as they do, its not an either / or situation. No one needs to be brow beaten into believing what the other does. The future keeps coming, whether 100% of the world believes in 1 religion or 0%. You don't believe, that's perfectly valid in my books, they do and that's equally valid. Religious interference in politics and legislature is never a good idea but its hardly the greatest legislative peril of our age, if human civilization comes crashing down because of legislative misconduct religion isn't going to be to blame. Its more likely going to be because of ignorance and short-sightedness, a crusade against that would definitely be something I could get behind.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 12:55
I'm not offended Aman, there's no need to apologize, I'm just a little frustrated is all. I don't consider you unreasonable which is why I've bothered debating the subject this long. Certain things seem glaringly obvious to me, that they would not be as obvious to someone with a different perspective was expected but that they would be all but invisible was not anticipated ...
outlaw: I can sense some annoyance in your posts. I don't take you as someone who is easily offended so I don't censor myself when talking to you. But if I said something that was disrespectful to you personally, I'm sorry.
I'm not offended Aman, there's no need to apologize, I'm just a little frustrated is all. I don't consider you unreasonable which is why I've bothered debating the subject this long. Certain things seem glaringly obvious to me, that they would not be as obvious to someone with a different perspective was expected but that they would be all but invisible was not anticipated ...
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 13:05
I'll email it asap, that way I can pick up a nice fat settlement cheque for sexual harassment and retire to an Island in the South Pacific before I'm 30. We just got here but I'm sure Xi won't mind moving again under 7+ plus figure circumstances.
outlaw: Send me your resume i'll hook you up with a boss that let's you go for week long vacations without notice. Once a week you'll have to stay late in his office but other than that you can come and go as you please.
I'll email it asap, that way I can pick up a nice fat settlement cheque for sexual harassment and retire to an Island in the South Pacific before I'm 30. We just got here but I'm sure Xi won't mind moving again under 7+ plus figure circumstances.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 13:43
Forgot I was playing good cop in this exchange, next time I get to be bad cop though.
I'm basing my view on a Qur'an exclusive interpretation, the interpretation that supports amputation is based more closely on Haddith. As for the apparent lack of outrage: Islam is in a very strange place right now, not only are outsiders debating the true identity of the religion, insiders are doing the same. Like Christianity before the schism into various churches, Islam might find itself split across the various points of contention into different denominations but to answer your question I'm not entirely sure. A great deal of debating and discussion on various matters goes on internally that only insiders are privy to, I'm not suggesting the hand cutters are necessarily suppressing the anti hand cutters but that its just difficult to get an accurate measure of things as an outsider until the dust settles.
outlaw:
Look at you mocking the power of prayer now. I'm sure i can cite some verses from the quran here as "proof" that god answers prayers, but you just threw that right out of the window. Don't be disrespectful now, that's my department.
I don't know the details of this particular example you are basing your entire argument on, after admitting yourself that the verse has three possible meanings. But let's assume for argument's sake that you are right and it is "plain as day" the meaning here is metaphorical. So how do you explain some countries using the amputation law then? You're making it sound like i am the first one to take that verse literally. But if it wasn't for muslims themselves making actual laws based on the literal translation, we wouldn't even be having this argument. And if it's only a small minority of zealots who made those laws, why didn't the majority try to stop them? I know muslim dominated countries aren't very democratic in nature, but does the muslim majority have no say in the matter? That's why i drew an analogy to death penalty earlier on. If most muslims aren't flipping their shxt over this the way they do when someone draws a cartoon of the prophet, it probably means opinion is divided and most of them are okay with thieves getting their hands literally chopped off.
Look at you mocking the power of prayer now.
I'm sure i can cite some verses from the quran here as "proof" that god answers prayers, but you just threw that right out of the window. Don't be disrespectful now, that's my department.
I don't know the details of this particular example you are basing your entire argument on, after admitting yourself that the verse has three possible meanings. But let's assume for argument's sake that you are right and it is "plain as day" the meaning here is metaphorical. So how do you explain some countries using the amputation law then? You're making it sound like i am the first one to take that verse literally. But if it wasn't for muslims themselves making actual laws based on the literal translation, we wouldn't even be having this argument. And if it's only a small minority of zealots who made those laws, why didn't the majority try to stop them? I know muslim dominated countries aren't very democratic in nature, but does the muslim majority have no say in the matter? That's why i drew an analogy to death penalty earlier on. If most muslims aren't flipping their shxt over this the way they do when someone draws a cartoon of the prophet, it probably means opinion is divided and most of them are okay with thieves getting their hands literally chopped off.
Forgot I was playing good cop in this exchange, next time I get to be bad cop though.
I'm basing my view on a Qur'an exclusive interpretation, the interpretation that supports amputation is based more closely on Haddith. As for the apparent lack of outrage: Islam is in a very strange place right now, not only are outsiders debating the true identity of the religion, insiders are doing the same. Like Christianity before the schism into various churches, Islam might find itself split across the various points of contention into different denominations but to answer your question I'm not entirely sure. A great deal of debating and discussion on various matters goes on internally that only insiders are privy to, I'm not suggesting the hand cutters are necessarily suppressing the anti hand cutters but that its just difficult to get an accurate measure of things as an outsider until the dust settles.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 13:57
You're doing a little more than "suggesting" but no matter, as for your other points. Secularism is no protection against small mindedness. Bolshevik Russia outlawed religion: Speaking out against communist rule replaced blasphemy with equally fatal results, the purges that follow rival those of the Catholic Inquisition several hundred years before it. Indoctrination, Death camps, tyranny followed and all that in the absence of religion. No, people don't need religion to discriminate and commit atrocities, they just need to be human. Religion is just a convenient excuse for some, others find other excuses but that's what they are excuses not reasons. Symptoms not causes.
outlaw:
So even a suggestion by an "outsider" like me not to bring religion into matters of state is seen as "brow beating" and makes me as bad as them. Meanwhile, muslim rulers continue to make laws that undermine and twist the "real meanings" of their holy quran and it's perfectly okay, because they are their own people, their heroes. We're only scraping the surface with this amputation thing btw. You wanna talk about "brow beating into believing what the other does", let's talk about those things which you refuse to discuss every time i bring them up. Homosexuality, apostasy, blasphemy, adultery. Can these ever be decriminalized without removing religion from the picture for good? When a muslim majority country has done that, i'll accept your argument that religion isn't the greatest peril of our age.
So even a suggestion by an "outsider" like me not to bring religion into matters of state is seen as "brow beating" and makes me as bad as them. Meanwhile, muslim rulers continue to make laws that undermine and twist the "real meanings" of their holy quran and it's perfectly okay, because they are their own people, their heroes. We're only scraping the surface with this amputation thing btw. You wanna talk about "brow beating into believing what the other does", let's talk about those things which you refuse to discuss every time i bring them up. Homosexuality, apostasy, blasphemy, adultery. Can these ever be decriminalized without removing religion from the picture for good? When a muslim majority country has done that, i'll accept your argument that religion isn't the greatest peril of our age.
You're doing a little more than "suggesting" but no matter, as for your other points. Secularism is no protection against small mindedness. Bolshevik Russia outlawed religion: Speaking out against communist rule replaced blasphemy with equally fatal results, the purges that follow rival those of the Catholic Inquisition several hundred years before it. Indoctrination, Death camps, tyranny followed and all that in the absence of religion. No, people don't need religion to discriminate and commit atrocities, they just need to be human. Religion is just a convenient excuse for some, others find other excuses but that's what they are excuses not reasons. Symptoms not causes.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 14:11
I don't claim to be some great Islamic scholar or to have unparalleled understanding and knowledge of Arabic but I do know enough that in all honesty I don't think the use of glaringly obvious is arrogant at all. Other people manage it to get through it just fine even without a friendly neighborhood Zen.
outlaw: I can say the same about you. Have you not completely ignored my post every time i brought up the aforementioned 4 things? I actually agreed to let those go and stick only to the topic. Why do YOU have trouble accepting that what seems glaringly obvious to might not be the case at all? Like you pointed out, i was actually using words like "may" and "might be". Even to claim something is "glaringly obvious to me" about a text written in a complex language seems a bit arrogant.
I don't claim to be some great Islamic scholar or to have unparalleled understanding and knowledge of Arabic but I do know enough that in all honesty I don't think the use of glaringly obvious is arrogant at all. Other people manage it to get through it just fine even without a friendly neighborhood Zen.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 14:15
Indian women have it all wrong then, you scream "harassment" long before you ever have to actually do anything. Its going to be a little difficult proving harassment afterwards, before is the best time to put the plan in motion.
outlaw: Great plan, except that things move at their own pace here and you and Xi will be well into your 80s when that cheque arrives. It's a sound investment plan for your grandchildren though. They can reap the rewards of your weekly "overtime".
Indian women have it all wrong then, you scream "harassment" long before you ever have to actually do anything. Its going to be a little difficult proving harassment afterwards, before is the best time to put the plan in motion.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 15:17
Not in every case, no ... And how goes the attempts at legalizing gay and lesbian marriage going in India? Without religious interference surely you've done that much at least.
outlaw:
Nobody said anything about outlawing religion. Enforcing secularism is as bad as religion. Why would you consider that as the only alternative to a theocracy? People like Stalin and Mao had their own brands of religion. They were cults of personality which are indistinguishable from theocratic totalitarian regimes. But why would you jump to those extreme examples? Are you suggesting that's what happens in every case when you try to move away from a religion-based government? I can cite plenty of examples which prove otherwise, but why go far. Even India is a fine example of a large democracy that has managed to keep religion out of law-making and other important affairs that affect people's lives.
Nobody said anything about outlawing religion. Enforcing secularism is as bad as religion. Why would you consider that as the only alternative to a theocracy? People like Stalin and Mao had their own brands of religion. They were cults of personality which are indistinguishable from theocratic totalitarian regimes. But why would you jump to those extreme examples? Are you suggesting that's what happens in every case when you try to move away from a religion-based government? I can cite plenty of examples which prove otherwise, but why go far. Even India is a fine example of a large democracy that has managed to keep religion out of law-making and other important affairs that affect people's lives.
Not in every case, no ... And how goes the attempts at legalizing gay and lesbian marriage going in India? Without religious interference surely you've done that much at least.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 15:24
I'm married remember, one of the forms we have to fill out signs over our constitutional right to be fun. I need to fill in 7 application forms submit them, receive express and written permission 7 working days in advance of any time I'm supposed fun
I know the movie, its very S&M.
outlaw: You're no fun :/ Have you seen that maggie gyllenhaal movie, the secretary?
I'm married remember, one of the forms we have to fill out signs over our constitutional right to be fun. I need to fill in 7 application forms submit them, receive express and written permission 7 working days in advance of any time I'm supposed fun
I know the movie, its very S&M.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 17:03
I have my doubts about the timeline you set but then again that's the opinion of an outsider. France legalized it only recently under Monsieur le Président François Hollande, the conservatives aren't too happy about that but he has enough liberal and moderate support I think to ignore them on this matter.
Anyway shall we file the hand cutting topic under "subjects we're not likely to agree on" and end the debate?
outlaw:
I see that happening in India in the near future. I know India isn't the finest example of what i was talking about, but we did recently decriminalize homosexuality for a while. For a country like India that was a huge step. So i can see gay marriage being legalized in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, if we were a theocracy and Section 377 was an ancient verse dictated by a god, it wouldn't even be open to debate like it is now.
I see that happening in India in the near future. I know India isn't the finest example of what i was talking about, but we did recently decriminalize homosexuality for a while. For a country like India that was a huge step. So i can see gay marriage being legalized in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, if we were a theocracy and Section 377 was an ancient verse dictated by a god, it wouldn't even be open to debate like it is now.
I have my doubts about the timeline you set but then again that's the opinion of an outsider. France legalized it only recently under Monsieur le Président François Hollande, the conservatives aren't too happy about that but he has enough liberal and moderate support I think to ignore them on this matter.
Anyway shall we file the hand cutting topic under "subjects we're not likely to agree on" and end the debate?
boingboingboing 2014/03/11 17:43
islam very badness ,they usually chop off heads of foreign people then youtube their acts of evilness
islam very badness ,they usually chop off heads of foreign people then youtube their acts of evilness
Replies: 37
#77 Factual Zone
A forum for article style topics. Share your knowledge of nature, history, science & anything factual.