This is absolutely disgusting. These people deserve to

[skeptik]

Actually you did when you said both would not be deterred by the death penalty because they would consider it Martyrdom.

I did not say this at all. I never once mentioned martyrdom. I was speaking of suicide bombers only insofar as they exemplify the triviality placed on human life in such a morbid environment. This has nothing to do with why suicide bombers blow themselves up. You mentioned martyrdom, not me, so your harping on this issue does nothing to further your argument.

And I merely pointed out one would consider it Martyrdom due to religious reasons (suicide bombers) while the other wouldn't due to cultural reasons (honor killers).It's pretty straight forward.

This is patently true, but this doesn't contradict anything that I said, meaning that you clearly misunderstood my point somewhere. This has nothing to do with martyrdom and the reasons why extremists kill themselves.

I never mentioned extremists nor crimes committed against the royal family. I meant general crime. General everyday murders and rapes. Murders committed during a robbery, a argument between friends, someone killed your mother etc.. whatever the motives are.

I didn't only mention extremists or crimes within the royal family, so apparently you only skimmed my comments. I said that the extremists leave the country, and that the royal families dips into the realm of violent, unlawful actions are covered up moreso than most crimes, but that there is a general lack of reporting many violent incidents throughout the country, "general crimes" not being reported, as you put it.

As for the book. Don't always believe what you read as most are biased by the author for whatever his or her beliefs are. But I won't go into that because as I said I wasn't talking about extremists or the royal family.

You're responding as if that's all that I'ved mentioned. And you should read the book before you say anything about ti. It should also be noted that almost everything in that book can be found in other sources as well. The bent of the book is merely the historical legacy of the royal family, but it touches on the issues that we've discussed, so I mentioned it.

Pretty much that everyday general capital crimes in S.A. are low in the Kingdom and other civilized Middle Eastern nations in that region that are not in conflicts due to the Death Penalty.

It is true that the Middle Eastern countries NOT embroiled in civil and outside war and generally free from the reign of violent extremist factions have less violent crime rates, what an amazing coincidence. Do you not see how obvious it is that this is due to the fact that they're NOT embroiled in civil and outside war and generally free from the reign of violent extremist factions, and not "due to the Death Penalty?" You're seeing a causation where there isn't one. In all likelihood, Saudi Arabia has less (reports of) violent crime because of the fact that their country has not been turned into an urban warzone like many other Middle Eastern countries. But no, it must be the Death Penalty, The Great Deterrent.

This what your statement is:"They need stabilization, not more stringent penalties on criminal activity."

I would say Life imprisonment is "stringent".

If you look at the context of the argument, due to the fact that I'm arguing in favor of life imprisonment, clearly by "more stringent penalties on criminal activity" I am implying the death penalty. I see that my wording may have been deceiving, but this should clarify matters; I was referring specifically to the death penalty.

again reread what i said about S.A. above since we are both talking about different things about it.

Now reread what I said, because I wasn't only talking about extremists and crimes within the royal family.

Let me quote a movie I watched today on tv (seen it before: The Quick & the Dead) to give my view on this much easier:

Preacher (Russell Crowe): Killing is wrong.
Lady (Sharon Stone): Some people deserve to die.

That's not a very impressive argument. There is no one in the world who deserves the position of deciding the fate of another man's life.

But like I said stone cold killer getting the Death Penalty will not be able to kill again whether in the outside world or in prison which will happen eventually if they do life in prison and have confrontations throughout their sentence.

So you would rather kill somebody than worry about a potential incident that may happen over the course of the next several decades? Hey, maybe you'll accidentally run over a little girl in 42 years, why don't you kill yourself now so you can prevent that from happening?

Give me a example.

Just watch the news and see the little children playing with hand grenades.

I did realize it and thats why I said it because you did change my mind on one of your points. I was just agreeing with you but you do not seem to see that.

Your wording initially suggested otherwise to me. I apologize for not seeing that you rather actively agreeing with me rather than accidentally.

Oh so now you can read their minds and speak for them?

Especially after you said this statement: "If these people valued their own lives so much they wouldn't regularly engage in suicide bombings. It's quite a rash assumption to make to think that a culture surrounded by so much violent death as there would actually give a damn about capital punishment and think twice about doing something."

By "give a damn" I meant the death penalty would not be an effective deterrent. It would not stop them from carrying out their extremist agendas, or whatever lesser ambition that any common resident may have. They live surrounded by death and many live in poverty, with very little ambitions or opportunities for a better life, so it is natural for life to be of lesser importance to them than to, say, your average American.

Since the invention of Television and the Internet do you not think if such a protest existed it would be leaked by now like this poor girl's murder?

And of course if you didn't see any protests (because you watch all news channels and view all political news websites 24 hours a day, nonstop, so you could not have possibly missed it happening), no protests happened. A very logical deduction.

Didn't I say this already: "I I don't see any protests whatsoever from any man that lives in the Middle East unless he's a westernized individual."

And so that means there are no protests? Westernized does not mean western. There are many Arabs who have been educated in the western tradition, but that doesn't make them any less Arab or their protestations against traditionally sanctioned cultural behaviors any less real or valid, so I don't see the point in raising the distinction between traditional and "westernized" Arab thought, as if the latter doesn't count.

I would say it is universally accepted in the Middle East.

Oh, okay. Cased closed, debate over. I wish you just would have said this in the beginning. You clearly had the answer all along, since you said it.

The arrests are probably to appease the rest of the world and say they are civilized. Like I said public relations purposes.

Regardless of the validity of this statement, which is questionable at best, on what grounds do you make this assumption?

It is the world according to Doden you just don't seem to admit it. And damn anyone who do not have his views because Doden is always right and no one else is.

It is the world according reality. Nothing that I say about the world itself comes from my own mind, but reality. My stances on issues are my own, but that should be obvious enough to any sentient being. Anyone who does not have the view of the world of things that I state about the world are most likely wrong, because I only speak about what I know, which is why I rarely talk about Syria, because I've never actively studied the history and climate of that country. But I have of Saudi Arabia, and I've relayed what I know about the country. Not my opinions about the country, not Saudi Arabia "according to Dodens," but according to what has been reported and verified by various sources. I don't care if you have different views than me, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to discuss that rationality of your views if I see cause for dispute in it. Who knows, I could be directed to a logical flaw in my own view by the dispute. It's called a healthy exchange of dialogue, not a "beat up on everyone that disagrees with me" free for all.

Believe it or not I also did at your age of 20 (I thought you were 17 because that is when I first came around to this site when you were that age. Guess I still thought you were that age). Anyways that term paper I wrote in college (around 1992) had all the views you are now posting in this thread. I still have the paper somewhere (if I can even find it in this messy apartment)since I know you will not believe me. But anyways I rethought my views lately and this honor killing is one reason for doing so.

Thanks for sharing this story, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

yes I forgot only Doden knows what he is talking about. Reread my views on S.A. if you forgot.

It turns out in this instance that you don't know what you're talking about, sorry. You brought up Saudi Arabia, so it was fair game to address its realities.

you have said that we shouldn't interfere and try to impose our morals or ideas on the middle east.

Where? I'm pretty sure if I mentioned anything to this effect, I somewhere near it qualified it with a statement to the effect of "unless it unnecessarily jeopardizes the lives and livelihoods of others." I do think that it is generally true that cultures should not be interfered with, but not if it infringes upon others' rights.

I already addressed this above when you said both would not care about the death penalty because both would consider it martyrdom. Go back and reread my post if you forgot.

NO I DIDN'T! I said nothing about martyrdom, my friend. I have no idea where you pulled that from. You need to stop setting up strawmen of my arguments and tackling them down in undeserved victory.

Again say what you like now but it's different when it happens. Whether before the killer is arrested, during the arrest or when he's convicted.

I know this, but I can deduce. And I think I'm in a better position to deduce my behavior in a given scenario, especially after a given period of time, than you are. Just because you know that you would want to see the person dead does not mean that everyone else would. The fucking pope got SHOT and then he gave the guy a high five. He tried to ASSASSINATE the pope, and the pope didn't condemn him. What would you do if somebody tried to assassinate you? Does it differ from what the pope did? I would imagine that it does, given your prior statements, which proves that not all people would think alike in such emotional circumstances, so don't assume that I would want to see another man dead.

It would do a damn thing in that he/she would not be able to murder again and someone else be feeling the grief you would be. Killing yourself would not do a damn thing.

Inmate safety is the issue of the penitentiaries themselves, which I personally feel could use a massive overhaul, but that is an entirely separate issue that I've discussed one too many times. The likelihood of an inmate killing another inmate is not substantial enough to merit the killing of said inmate in order to prevent it from happening, so that is a poor argument. And by killing myself, I would alleviate myself from grief, which seems to be the reason that you want to see the inmate dead, in order to alleviate your own grief.

I was actually starting the ninth grade when you were a embryo. Do the math and figure out my age. I'm one of the oldest on this board.

This is not an accomplishment, so don't treat it as such.

And you may not think so but your views can or may change when and if you reach my age. Whether you like to admit it or not right now. Do me a favor when you do reach that age and if your views do change think back to this thread and debate between us. [/quote]

I'm fully aware that, amazingly enough, as time goes by and people experience different things and the global political climate changes, so too might change the opinions of the general public. Nobody would ever deny this. But this is 2007, in the political climate that we live in right now, between you and me. Age is irrelevant. And even to argue that it is has not bearing on the validity of the arguments themselves. If my position was argued my a 64 year old and yours about a 15 year old, it would make no difference to the arguments themselves.

Ask yourself if you are the same person in all your views and thoughts as you were at the age of 11 or some other age?

I hope you realize how silly it is to compare the shift from 11 to 20 to the shift from 20 to 35. The cognitive development between the ages of 11 and 20 are so radically and exponentially greater than essentially all of the development that takes place after the age of anywhere between, say, 17 and 25, depending on the individual and his or her circumstances that addressing the issue is not even prudent.

People older are sometimes wiser (i'm not saying in this particular issue but in general) and someday you will look at a narcissistic kid whose 17 or 20 or whatever age with some views that perhaps will make your own eyes roll. Views that perhaps you had at the same age.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with this debate. But for what it's worth, I know a fair amount of people older than you whose views are more radical than my own, so age has no causational bearing on the development of one's ideology.

 

[skeptik]

^ wtf??

honestly, send a pm or something

noones going to read that shit

I doubt either of us are doing this for your amusement.

I didn't even read the entire thread but how long these posts are are hilarious!!! It's amazing to believe someone would waste their time making long posts.

Evidently you don't understand the advantages of healthy debate. Some people actually find it to be an enjoyable activity, such as myself. I'm not asking you to read it.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

I doubt either of us are doing this for your amusement.



Evidently you don't understand the advantages of healthy debate. Some people actually find it to be an enjoyable activity, such as myself. I'm not asking you to read it.

^^ anyways other then that I'll post probably after the weekend... have a cold since last night... not in the mood to post a long one again till i get better...

 

[Alongside Death]

These post were enormous but I have read them. I agree with the most things that Dodens said. The pope argument that Dodens posted was crushing IMO.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

I didn't only mention extremists or crimes within the royal family, so apparently you only skimmed my comments. I said that the extremists leave the country, and that the royal families dips into the realm of violent, unlawful actions are covered up moreso than most crimes, but that there is a general lack of reporting many violent incidents throughout the country, "general crimes" not being reported, as you put it.

I will try to keep my posts short, brief and to the point since these things are getting way too long. We should just agree that we do not agree and leave it at that. But anyways you put emphasis on extremists and the royal family in your post and not punishment of "general crimes". But anyways read this interesting article titled " Chopping heads off in the Name of God". It's a interview of a executioner in Saudia Arabia: http://www.pattayadailynews.com/shownews.php?IDNEWS=0000002859

You're responding as if that's all that I'ved mentioned. And you should read the book before you say anything about ti. It should also be noted that almost everything in that book can be found in other sources as well. The bent of the book is merely the historical legacy of the royal family, but it touches on the issues that we've discussed, so I mentioned it.

I really don't have the time to read it between work, other obligations and already reading 10 books at any one time that I don't even have time for as well. But perhaps someday I'll read a book on that subject.

It is true that the Middle Eastern countries NOT embroiled in civil and outside war and generally free from the reign of violent extremist factions have less violent crime rates, what an amazing coincidence. Do you not see how obvious it is that this is due to the fact that they're NOT embroiled in civil and outside war and generally free from the reign of violent extremist factions, and not "due to the Death Penalty?" You're seeing a causation where there isn't one. In all likelihood, Saudi Arabia has less (reports of) violent crime because of the fact that their country has not been turned into an urban warzone like many other Middle Eastern countries. But no, it must be the Death Penalty, The Great Deterrent.

Again I only mean general crimes and not ones that are political or religiously motivated. Read the article of the executioner again.

If you look at the context of the argument, due to the fact that I'm arguing in favor of life imprisonment, clearly by "more stringent penalties on criminal activity" I am implying the death penalty. I see that my wording may have been deceiving, but this should clarify matters; I was referring specifically to the death penalty.

Yes i know you did but had to get you to say it to be more clear. But anyways you do not consider life imprisonment stringent?

Now reread what I said, because I wasn't only talking about extremists and crimes within the royal family.

I know you were and again I wasn't. General crimes and the deterrent the death penatly might or might not have is the only argument I was discussing.

That's not a very impressive argument. There is no one in the world who deserves the position of deciding the fate of another man's life.

That is your opinion. The killer thought otherwise so therefor they do not deserve to live especially serial killers or mass murderers but thats a whole other story.

So you would rather kill somebody than worry about a potential incident that may happen over the course of the next several decades? Hey, maybe you'll accidentally run over a little girl in 42 years, why don't you kill yourself now so you can prevent that from happening?

You know the climate in prison is like. In there it's kill or be killed. To compare that to a car accident is not the same.

Just watch the news and see the little children playing with hand grenades.

You said suicide bombers were not the only ones who put their lives on the line. These children are the future suicide bombers learning at a early age. So both are one and the same. I meant another example not related.

By "give a damn" I meant the death penalty would not be an effective deterrent. It would not stop them from carrying out their extremist agendas, or whatever lesser ambition that any common resident may have. They live surrounded by death and many live in poverty, with very little ambitions or opportunities for a better life, so it is natural for life to be of lesser importance to them than to, say, your average American.

I would say life does hold meaning to them. At least their own lives. If it didn't they would kill themselves because of their poverty and the death that surrounds them. And I mean the common resident and not the extremist.Therefor if they care for their own life the death penalty would be and is a deterrent as evidenced in S.A. (read that executioner interview again).

And of course if you didn't see any protests (because you watch all news channels and view all political news websites 24 hours a day, nonstop, so you could not have possibly missed it happening), no protests happened. A very logical deduction.

Like I said it would leak out and especially after this poor girl's death was plastered all over the internet. Where did you see any mass protests to stop honor killing in those countries in the TV , internet etc? So in that regards yes it is a logical deduction.

[/B]

And so that means there are no protests? Westernized does not mean western. There are many Arabs who have been educated in the western tradition, but that doesn't make them any less Arab or their protestations against traditionally sanctioned cultural behaviors any less real or valid, so I don't see the point in raising the distinction between traditional and "westernized" Arab thought, as if the latter doesn't count.

A westernized arab would more then likely and have been protesting traditional thought. That is the difference. They are less arab you might say but less arab because they believe in living in modern times and not 1,000 years ago.

Oh, okay. Cased closed, debate over. I wish you just would have said this in the beginning. You clearly had the answer all along, since you said it.

Universally accepted by the men & not the women. Better now?

Regardless of the validity of this statement, which is questionable at best, on what grounds do you make this assumption?

What would your conclusion be then? if not to appease the world at large to show they are not barbarians. If they did not care what the world thought they would not punish them. But they do punish (if you call the small sentence punishment) them for a reason and it's not because they disapprove.

It is the world according reality. Nothing that I say about the world itself comes from my own mind, but reality. My stances on issues are my own, but that should be obvious enough to any sentient being. Anyone who does not have the view of the world of things that I state about the world are most likely wrong, because I only speak about what I know, which is why I rarely talk about Syria, because I've never actively studied the history and climate of that country. But I have of Saudi Arabia, and I've relayed what I know about the country. Not my opinions about the country, not Saudi Arabia "according to Dodens," but according to what has been reported and verified by various sources. I don't care if you have different views than me, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to discuss that rationality of your views if I see cause for dispute in it. Who knows, I could be directed to a logical flaw in my own view by the dispute. It's called a healthy exchange of dialogue, not a "beat up on everyone that disagrees with me" free for all.

it's your interpretation as well as the authors/writers you read on the subject on S.A. or other topics. That is not reality since it is one sided. It is like what people around the world write about America. Most of it we know is not true but to them it is so therefor to them it is reality. As for beating up because I disagree with someone. I don't feel I been beating up on you for your opinions. We have been having a exchange of dialogue the way i see it.

Thanks for sharing this story, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

But it does. I wrote a paper in 1992 for a college class on the Death Penalty that were anti-DP and now you see my views so it shows how one's views can definetly change over a course of one's life. So that is why I brought it up to show that your views can change in 15 years when you yourself are 35. I didn't think at 20 that my views would change but they did.

Where? I'm pretty sure if I mentioned anything to this effect, I somewhere near it qualified it with a statement to the effect of "unless it unnecessarily jeopardizes the lives and livelihoods of others." I do think that it is generally true that cultures should not be interfered with, but not if it infringes upon others' rights.

It is not affecting our rights as Americans. But it is affecting a woman's right in our way of thinking ,though in their case they do not really have rights so technically it does not infringe on their rights.

I know this, but I can deduce. And I think I'm in a better position to deduce my behavior in a given scenario, especially after a given period of time, than you are. Just because you know that you would want to see the person dead does not mean that everyone else would. The fucking pope got SHOT and then he gave the guy a high five. He tried to ASSASSINATE the pope, and the pope didn't condemn him. What would you do if somebody tried to assassinate you? Does it differ from what the pope did? I would imagine that it does, given your prior statements, which proves that not all people would think alike in such emotional circumstances, so don't assume that I would want to see another man dead.

The Pope is a totally different being then us. He can't condemn anyone and label himself a Christian & preach Thy Shall Not Kill etc.(unless he was extremist of course). His views have always been turn another cheek as opposed to a eye for a eye. But anyways I hope you never have to face such a thing but if you do and you react differently then you say now. Just also remember you are human and humans can change so to say you would not be like that if it happens to you is kind of naive.

Inmate safety is the issue of the penitentiaries themselves, which I personally feel could use a massive overhaul, but that is an entirely separate issue that I've discussed one too many times. The likelihood of an inmate killing another inmate is not substantial enough to merit the killing of said inmate in order to prevent it from happening, so that is a poor argument. And by killing myself, I would alleviate myself from grief, which seems to be the reason that you want to see the inmate dead, in order to alleviate your own grief.

And if said inmate does kill since he will be spending decades in there and the likelihood of it happening are very much in favor of so? Plus what if said inmate gets out on a technicality. How would you feel then? What would you feel if he killed again?.

This is not an accomplishment, so don't treat it as such.

Never said anything about accomplishment. You said that i was under 18 and I merely pointed out that I am anything but. I wish i was young again (well 25 is a nice age in my book) but i'm not.

I'm fully aware that, amazingly enough, as time goes by and people experience different things and the global political climate changes, so too might change the opinions of the general public. Nobody would ever deny this. But this is 2007, in the political climate that we live in right now, between you and me. Age is irrelevant. And even to argue that it is has not bearing on the validity of the arguments themselves. If my position was argued my a 64 year old and yours about a 15 year old, it would make no difference to the arguments themselves.

But age does have a world of difference to do with it. Our experiences shape us and in turn molds our views. A 15 yr old and 64 yr old would not think the same. One has more experiences and has seen more. The other thinks he has experiences and seen it all.One is wiser and one thinks he/she is. But over time they come to realize they were not as they get older and really have experiences.

I hope you realize how silly it is to compare the shift from 11 to 20 to the shift from 20 to 35. The cognitive development between the ages of 11 and 20 are so radically and exponentially greater than essentially all of the development that takes place after the age of anywhere between, say, 17 and 25, depending on the individual and his or her circumstances that addressing the issue is not even prudent.

I don't find it silly since as I said our experiences molds our views over time. Regardless of age we all have views throughout life.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with this debate. But for what it's worth, I know a fair amount of people older than you whose views are more radical than my own, so age has no causational bearing on the development of one's ideology.

I really don't consider your views radical. Just misguided perhaps and quite conservative at times.

 

[skeptik]

You won. I don't have the patience for this anymore, because you're not getting what I'm saying. And I don't limit myself to one side of an argument as you alluded, I read material on both sides of the fence and decide for myself, like any intelligent person would do.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

Not out to start a old argument.. just wanted to post this because i found it interesting... best not to reply and let the thread die or debate it with someone else if it gets a reply:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

 

[skeptik]

Those conclusions are so outrageously off base. Deterrent effect cannot be gauged that way. That's like trying to prove the existence of God mathematically; it's not even within the same realm of reasoning. And if you notice the only people who seem to agree with the findings of those studies are the people who carried them out.

In other news, 40% of Americans say they would not be able to serve on a jury and condemn somebody to death for moral reasons, while 60% say that they support the death penalty. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070609/us_nm/usa_deathpenalty_dc_1

Also, I'm closing this thread, as it's been dug up more than enough as it is.