Saudi king 'pardons rape victim'
-
Originally posted by protonhybrid:dont talk about masturbation here or other sick sexual fantasies of yours in this thread. for that there is "Bar" section in this forum.
Originally posted by protonhybrid:
Guess which pinhead brought masturbation into the debate in the first place?
provide some facts instead of fiction, and logical discourse instead of mental 'masturbation'.Originally posted by protonhybrid:
Wow you certainly have a great command of English. Too bad that does not a whit in disguising your 16th century attitudes of misogyny.
mate learn about fiction first!
a statement containing 'should' 'ought to' 'must' etc GENERALLY (in english language) is normative sentence. neither fact nor fiction. they're OPINIONS, value judgments!
what you mentioned was fiction is in fact neither fact nor fiction.
I wish you luck in finding a wife in our 'modern' society. I wish your wife even greater luck to survive your beatings and oppression. Perhaps I may see you in jail once marital rape legislation is fully developed. -
instead of having a go at me or my personality, can you critique my arguments?Originally posted by rooki:Wow you certainly have a great command of English. Too bad that does not a whit in disguising your 16th century attitudes of misogyny.
I wish you luck in finding a wife in our 'modern' society. I wish your wife even greater luck to survive your beatings and oppression. Perhaps I may see you in jail once marital rape legislation is fully developed.
it's often said that when in an argument, any one party resorts to personal attacks or insults, it's a sign of admission of defeat. -
what arguments?Originally posted by protonhybrid:instead of having a go at me or my personality, can you critique my arguments?
it's often said that when in an argument, any one party resorts to personal attacks or insults, it's a sign of admission of defeat.
..stupid excuses used out of context more like it... how can any civilized person condone a state sentencing a woman to jail for 6 months and give her 200 lashes, for.... sitting in a car with a man... even if they are having sex it is nobody's business...
-
Protonhybrid based his argument on Saudi laws. It is the laws and the woman did break the laws.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:what arguments?
..stupid excuses used out of context more like it... how can any civilized person condone a state sentencing a woman to jail for 6 months and give her 200 lashes, for.... sitting in a car with a man... even if they are having sex it is nobody's business...
However, he failed to analyse whether is the laws humane and reasonable or not in today society. He kept repeating we as Singaporeans have no right in criticizing Saudi laws. -
which is TRUEOriginally posted by Spartans:Protonhybrid based his argument on Saudi laws. It is the laws and the woman did break the laws.
However, he failed to analyse whether is the laws humane and reasonable or not in today society. He kept repeating we as Singaporeans have no right in criticizing Saudi laws.
We singaporeans didn't want to hear how caning michael fay was wrong.
They similarly don't want to hear our comments on how wrong their laws are.
But laws are laws.
And rules are only as good as people who follow them.
By "today society", what you really mean is "My society". Consider for a moment how obnoxious that sounds. -
Omg, this thread started two weeks ago and you guys are still arguing? By the way, proton, where's the answers I have been asking from you in my previous posts? And I wonder do the below posts count as admissions of defeat.Originally posted by protonhybrid:instead of having a go at me or my personality, can you critique my arguments?
it's often said that when in an argument, any one party resorts to personal attacks or insults, it's a sign of admission of defeat.Originally posted by protonhybrid:you're just babbling about your OWN G******* self n*mrod.
Look, I don't wish to spend more time arguing with you guys about an opinion I and many others hold. But to see someone having an opposite view, I'm curious to know what made them think so. But as you can see, it's taking up too much time while the topic is getting nowhere, and I know many of us involved are really exhausted.Originally posted by protonhybrid:i see your development hasn't accelarted, au contraire it's RET@RDED!
keep repeating this until you advance enough intellectually to see the fallacy. till then au revoir.
Let me just propose you one final question to satisfy what I, and maybe others as well, would like to know. Please reply with either a "Yes" or "No" - that will be good enough. If you wish to justify your answers or have any other comments, please keep them in a separate post. I just need that "Yes/No" answer.
Here's the question: Do you think it's fair for you to go into a car with a acquaintance of the opposite gender and end up getting a jail term of 6 months and 200 lashes for it?
If you can't even answer this question and consciously skip it for the sake of throwing in your own argument, I would then see no purpose for us to continue this debate. -
LateComerX, you're being childish! now you're the more reasonable of the other ch**kaporeans arguing over here. that says a lot eh?
OF COURSE it's fair that in a sovereign country they employ their own legal system. what's so unfair about it? even more importantly, who are singaporeans to judge, question or assess the 'fairness' of laws in other places? -
let's see if singaporeans are people of their words. or do they break their words?
do they live up to the hype created by their own selves about freedom of expression blah blah blah modernity etc which is basically kowtowing to anglophone cultures rules regulations etc? -
Allright protonhybrid. Further discussion of this is absolutely pointless if you do not stand by your arguments.
I now ask you: would you have spoken out against the Apartheid regime in South Africa in the 80s-90s? Just answer a yes or a no. It's that simple. -
Nope, you're not answering my question, my friend. Let me pose it to you one last time, which would possibly be my last reply to you in this topic if you still wish to sidetrack.Originally posted by protonhybrid:LateComerX, you're being childish! now you're the more reasonable of the other ch**kaporeans arguing over here. that says a lot eh?
OF COURSE it's fair that in a sovereign country they employ their own legal system. what's so unfair about it? even more importantly, who are singaporeans to judge, question or assess the 'fairness' of laws in other places?
Question:
Do you think it's fair for you to go into a car with a acquaintance of the opposite gender and end up getting a jail term of 6 months and 200 lashes for it?
I have highlighted the keywords for your reference, and please do not take the question out of any context again. It's not about being in a sovereign country, within a legal system or whatsoever. If there is any context, it's about you as a human being on this planet. I am expecting an one-word answer. If you have anything else to say, like who's childish or moronic, please keep them in a separate post as they will be disregarded.
And a Happy New Year to everyone else who is reading this topic.
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
Yes, I think its unfair and barbaric. But is this statement going to protect me from their wrath if I go over and mess with their women?
Question:
Do [b]you think it's fair for you to go into a car with a acquaintance of the opposite gender and end up getting a jail term of 6 months and 200 lashes for it?
I have highlighted the keywords for your reference, and please do not take the question out of any context again. It's not about being in a sovereign country, within a legal system or whatsoever. If there is any context, it's about you as a human being on this planet. I am expecting an one-word answer. If you have anything else to say, like who's childish or moronic, please keep them in a separate post as they will be disregarded.
And a Happy New Year to everyone else who is reading this topic.
[/b]
If, and when Saudi Arabia undertakes legal reforms and maybe adopts commonwealth law, I say THAT'S GREAT!
That's a system more familiar to businesses and travelers and more consistent with the laws and regulations in place in many other countries.
Until that day, when I fly to the middle east, I respect their laws, regulations, cultures and religion and keep away from their women. -
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
happpy (christian) new year to you my friend.
Nope, you're not answering my question, my friend. Let me pose it to you one last time, which would possibly be my last reply to you in this topic if you still wish to sidetrack.
Question:
Do [b]you think it's fair for you to go into a car with a acquaintance of the opposite gender and end up getting a jail term of 6 months and 200 lashes for it?
I have highlighted the keywords for your reference, and please do not take the question out of any context again. It's not about being in a sovereign country, within a legal system or whatsoever. If there is any context, it's about you as a human being on this planet. I am expecting an one-word answer. If you have anything else to say, like who's childish or moronic, please keep them in a separate post as they will be disregarded.
And a Happy New Year to everyone else who is reading this topic.
[/b]
IF YOU WANT TO ASK ABOUT MYSELF, and think that ONLY ONE SET OF LAWS APPLY or should apply through out the world, kindly open a thread yourself on that matter!
otherwise try to stick to topic. -
Originally posted by CX:
I believe first you need some grammar lessons of your 'master' anglophones.
If, and when Saudi Arabia undertakes legal reforms and [b]maybe adopts commonwealth law, I say THAT'S GREAT!
That's a system more familiar to businesses and travelers and more consistent with the laws and regulations in place in many other countries.
[/b]
And second, thanks for proving what a devoted bum l!cker you're, of anglophone's empires and ambitions. you even have gall to talk about adoption of foreign anglophone commonwealth laws for a sovereign nation.
IF singapore was sovereign they'd be ashamed. however they're not sovereign and merely an outpost for britain in asean region. -
Practise what you preach.Originally posted by protonhybrid:I believe first you need some grammar lessons of your 'master' anglophones.
And second, thanks for proving what a devoted bum l!cker you're, of anglophone's empires and ambitions. you even have gall to talk about adoption of foreign anglophone commonwealth laws for a sovereign nation.
IF singapore was sovereign they'd be ashamed. however they're not sovereign and merely an outpost for britain in asean region.
Israel is a sovereign country, regardless of whether you like it or not. -
Originally posted by Spartans:
hmmm....no. a large chunk of the world doesn't recognize it. and it was indeed a british creation. therefore it seems i am indeed practising what i preach. however the only catch is you provided wrong "facts".
Practise what you preach.
[b]Israel is a sovereign country, regardless of whether you like it or not. [/b] -
All common law legal systems in the world are based on english law.Originally posted by protonhybrid:I believe first you need some grammar lessons of your 'master' anglophones.
And second, thanks for proving what a devoted bum l!cker you're, of anglophone's empires and ambitions. you even have gall to talk about adoption of foreign anglophone commonwealth laws for a sovereign nation.
IF singapore was sovereign they'd be ashamed. however they're not sovereign and merely an outpost for britain in asean region.
And there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the approach of a common law system. It allows for more transparency and more certainty through the proper application of precedences.
Just because its Saudi doesn't make it bad if the Arabs decide to use it. In the same way, just because it traces it roots back to British imperialism does not mean that its a bad system.
I am merely indicating that should the Arabs decide on legal reforms to bring their legal systems to be more consistent with the practices in other countries, I think that its a good idea for people, travellers and businesses.
Until then, I respect their laws as it stands. -
Indeed.Originally posted by protonhybrid:hmmm....no. a large chunk of the world doesn't recognize it. and it was indeed a british creation. therefore it seems i am indeed practising what i preach. however the only catch is you provided wrong "facts".
The large chunk of the world you mentioned referred to the Muslim-majority nations such as the Middle Eastern Arab nations, Indonesia, North Africa Muslim nations such as Algeria... -
I coulda sworn they were an independant nation. But hey, who am I to argue with your "facts"?Originally posted by protonhybrid:hmmm....no. a large chunk of the world doesn't recognize it. and it was indeed a british creation. therefore it seems i am indeed practising what i preach. however the only catch is you provided wrong "facts". -
La Di DaOriginally posted by protonhybrid:I believe first you need some grammar lessons of your 'master' anglophones.
And second, thanks for proving what a devoted bum l!cker you're, of anglophone's empires and ambitions. you even have gall to talk about adoption of foreign anglophone commonwealth laws for a sovereign nation.
IF singapore was sovereign they'd be ashamed. however they're not sovereign and merely an outpost for britain in asean region.
I have came to a conclusion that protonhybrid is a racist who lashes against the apparent evils of caucasian culture covertly.
I also came to the conclusion that Singapore is not quite really that an outpost for Brits now . In the past - yes. Currently - no. Singapore , like many countries , are focused on trading with China. So Sino > anglo? -
soon we will be kowtowing to the saudi family for oil..if this trend continues
-
Their oil supplies will dry up in a few decades time.Originally posted by Catknight:soon we will be kowtowing to the saudi family for oil..if this trend continues -
what do you mean by common law legal systems? and why do you say such an ancient system is advanced or desirable? apart from british colonies especially the lieks of singapore which licks their bums incessantly nobody else supports it frankly.Originally posted by CX:All common law legal systems in the world are based on english law.
And there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the approach of a common law system. It allows for more transparency and more certainty through the proper application of precedences.
Just because its Saudi doesn't make it bad if the Arabs decide to use it. In the same way, just because it traces it roots back to British imperialism does not mean that its a bad system.
I am merely indicating that should the Arabs decide on legal reforms to bring their legal systems to be more consistent with the practices in other countries, I think that its a good idea for people, travellers and businesses.
Until then, I respect their laws as it stands. -
that's a lot of nations and a lot of people. israel isn't however. democracy?Originally posted by Spartans:Indeed.
The large chunk of the world you mentioned referred to the Muslim-majority nations such as the Middle Eastern Arab nations, Indonesia, North Africa Muslim nations such as Algeria...
tiny israel or all these countries? whose decision is more important? -
you're again making baseless claims without any proof. your conclusions are ill conceived. yes we agree singapore was a british outpost in the post. and we agree in trade singapore is focussing more on asian region including china. however its education, culture entertainment, legal system, technology, politics, environment etc etc is moulded on british ones. as they were the ones who colonized singapore and singaporeans gladly or otherwise accepted them wholesale.Originally posted by fymk:La Di Da
I have came to a conclusion that protonhybrid is a racist who lashes against the apparent evils of caucasian culture covertly.
I also came to the conclusion that Singapore is not quite really that an outpost for Brits now . In the past - yes. Currently - no. Singapore , like many countries , are focused on trading with China. So Sino > anglo? -
thanks for your prescience. 'few' may equal ten or 20.Originally posted by fymk:Their oil supplies will dry up in a few decades time.
i.e. few decades may equal 100 or 200 years.