Saudi Arabia to execute woman for 'witchcraft'

[Alex+R 0]

DeadPool,

I don't think you can realistically ask people to not be outraged at things they find outrageous.

I can bet you plenty of people in Saudi are outraged by our TV, our cinema, our culture in general.

I understand and agree. But by that same token, if being outraged is a good enough reason to effect change in another country, and the Saudi people might very well be outraged by our "TV, cinema and culture in general" what's stopping them from changing us?

A whole lot. It's not that simple, as we've tried to explain in earlier threads.

[DeadPoolX 9]

i don't think anyone is saying that it's not alright for private citizens to join international aid groups or whatever. is it just the military aspect you are objecting to deadpoolx?

I suppose what annoys me is... how we can we sit here and realistically tell another country (many other countries, actually) that they need to change and in effect, be more "like us" when we're not only completely unwilling to understand their culture and society but we've gone to war to protect our own culture and society!

That seems just a bit hypocritical in my book.

As I see it, we have one of two options:

1. We attempt to change these other cultures and societies (by force if need be) and if, in the near or far future, some other culture or society decides it wants to change us, we need to be ready for it and deal with it. We'll be "fair game" considering our actions in the past.

2. We take a "live and let live" approach, so long as these other cultures and societies do nothing to harm or otherwise threaten us. If they do that, then we can interfere with them, but beyond that, we do nothing to get involved.

I can't see how we can expect to say it's "okay" to alter others, but then turn around and announce that it's "not okay" for them to do the same to us. Other countries aren't going to abide by that and I wouldn't blame them one bit.

We DO need to be open to being told what to do by other countries. By a functioning, more powerful UN. We need to be able to told to stop torturing, using secret prisons through extraordinary rendition and to back off on the military aggression. We are a country like any other country and if other nations want to resolve to tell us what not to do, we should listen.

By the same token, we need to be able to come together with other countries and say "hey, stop killing your witches" once in awhile. Sure, I understand that they do it because they feel it's right, because religion dictates they do it and because culturally it's acceptable. Actually a few days ago I was reading an argument that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with human rights. Too effing bad, IMO. Everyone deserves life.

Here's the problem DeadPool. You see an "us" as just Americans or even just Westerners; I see "us" as human beings. There is no "live and let live" when we're all in this together.

Fair enough, Alex. But let me ask you, this: what happens when others from foreign nations and different cultures and societies decide that they disagree with you (and anyone who thinks like you) on this thought? I doubt they'll be very cooperative. So what do we do? Do we force them to interact with us? Install a "puppet government" so these countries will follow our lead? How exactly do we get those who don't want to "play" according to these rules to work this through?

[sandinista! 1,816]

i don't think anyone is saying that it's not alright for private citizens to join international aid groups or whatever. is it just the military aspect you are objecting to deadpoolx?

I suppose what annoys me is... how we can we sit here and realistically tell another country (many other countries, actually) that they need to change and in effect, be more "like us" when we're not only completely unwilling to understand their culture and society but we've gone to war to protect our own culture and society!

That seems just a bit hypocritical in my book.

As I see it, we have one of two options:

1. We attempt to change these other cultures and societies (by force if need be) and if, in the near or far future, some other culture or society decides it wants to change us, we need to be ready for it and deal with it. We'll be "fair game" considering our actions in the past.

2. We take a "live and let live" approach, so long as these other cultures and societies do nothing to harm or otherwise threaten us. If they do that, then we can interfere with them, but beyond that, we do nothing to get involved.

I can't see how we can expect to say it's "okay" to alter others, but then turn around and announce that it's "not okay" for them to do the same to us. Other countries aren't going to abide by that and I wouldn't blame them one bit.

yes, i would imagine if the same non-saudis who want to change saudi were to be told that lots of chinese communists think their reproductive rights should be limited to the same standards as china's "one-child policy", they wouldn't think too highly of any judgment or interference coming from those chinese communists.

[Alex+R 0]

i don't think anyone is saying that it's not alright for private citizens to join international aid groups or whatever. is it just the military aspect you are objecting to deadpoolx?

I suppose what annoys me is... how we can we sit here and realistically tell another country (many other countries, actually) that they need to change and in effect, be more "like us" when we're not only completely unwilling to understand their culture and society but we've gone to war to protect our own culture and society!

That seems just a bit hypocritical in my book.

As I see it, we have one of two options:

1. We attempt to change these other cultures and societies (by force if need be) and if, in the near or far future, some other culture or society decides it wants to change us, we need to be ready for it and deal with it. We'll be "fair game" considering our actions in the past.

2. We take a "live and let live" approach, so long as these other cultures and societies do nothing to harm or otherwise threaten us. If they do that, then we can interfere with them, but beyond that, we do nothing to get involved.

I can't see how we can expect to say it's "okay" to alter others, but then turn around and announce that it's "not okay" for them to do the same to us. Other countries aren't going to abide by that and I wouldn't blame them one bit.

We DO need to be open to being told what to do by other countries. By a functioning, more powerful UN. We need to be able to told to stop torturing, using secret prisons through extraordinary rendition and to back off on the military aggression. We are a country like any other country and if other nations want to resolve to tell us what not to do, we should listen.

By the same token, we need to be able to come together with other countries and say "hey, stop killing your witches" once in awhile. Sure, I understand that they do it because they feel it's right, because religion dictates they do it and because culturally it's acceptable. Actually a few days ago I was reading an argument that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with human rights. Too effing bad, IMO. Everyone deserves life.

Here's the problem DeadPool. You see an "us" as just Americans or even just Westerners; I see "us" as human beings. There is no "live and let live" when we're all in this together.

Fair enough, Alex. But let me ask you, this: what happens when others from foreign nations and different cultures and societies decide that they disagree with you (and anyone who thinks like you) on this thought? I doubt they'll be very cooperative. So what do we do? Do we force them to interact with us? Install a "puppet government" so these countries will follow our lead? How exactly do we get those who don't want to "play" according to these rules to work this through?

Sanctions, stop trading with them, etc. Things a capitalist country will never do. That's why lawyers call the UDHR an "aspirational document."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Stop trading with Saudi, yeah right. Not for another hundred years, if that....

[Alex+R 0]

Stop trading with Saudi, yeah right. Not for another hundred years, if that....

Yep. That's the problem. Ethics should trump economics, but they never do.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Stop trading with Saudi, yeah right. Not for another hundred years, if that....

Yep. That's the problem. Ethics should trump economics, but they never do.

Ethics has nothing to do with it and shouldn't. We need oil, they have oil. They'll run out in the long-near-term, so we should transition off of it. Ethics is irrelevant.

[Alex+R 0]

Stop trading with Saudi, yeah right. Not for another hundred years, if that....

Yep. That's the problem. Ethics should trump economics, but they never do.

Ethics has nothing to do with it and shouldn't. We need oil, they have oil. They'll run out in the long-near-term, so we should transition off of it. Ethics is irrelevant.

Ethics are never irrelevant. Only in capitalism.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Stop trading with Saudi, yeah right. Not for another hundred years, if that....

Yep. That's the problem. Ethics should trump economics, but they never do.

Ethics has nothing to do with it and shouldn't. We need oil, they have oil. They'll run out in the long-near-term, so we should transition off of it. Ethics is irrelevant.

Ethics are never irrelevant. Only in capitalism.

Oh, but they are.

Or should that be Oh, but it is ...

[Peikko 1,575]

'Thus the International Bill of Human Rights represents a milestone in the history of human rights, a veritable Magna Carta marking mankind's arrival at a vitally important phase: the conscious acquisition of human dignity and worth.'

Worth reading.

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

But surely you must draw a line somewhere, no? What if they were executing all Jews (not that there are any there, but what if)?

You mean like when the government gas's whole towns, has torture and rape chambers, does mass murder ect.. Is that where the line is for us to "do something" about it?

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

We DO need to be open to being told what to do by other countries. By a functioning, more powerful UN.

no, we don't. on either count.

[GaryC 7]

i don't think anyone is saying that it's not alright for private citizens to join international aid groups or whatever. is it just the military aspect you are objecting to deadpoolx?

I suppose what annoys me is... how we can we sit here and realistically tell another country (many other countries, actually) that they need to change and in effect, be more "like us" when we're not only completely unwilling to understand their culture and society but we've gone to war to protect our own culture and society!

That seems just a bit hypocritical in my book.

As I see it, we have one of two options:

1. We attempt to change these other cultures and societies (by force if need be) and if, in the near or far future, some other culture or society decides it wants to change us, we need to be ready for it and deal with it. We'll be "fair game" considering our actions in the past.

2. We take a "live and let live" approach, so long as these other cultures and societies do nothing to harm or otherwise threaten us. If they do that, then we can interfere with them, but beyond that, we do nothing to get involved.

I can't see how we can expect to say it's "okay" to alter others, but then turn around and announce that it's "not okay" for them to do the same to us. Other countries aren't going to abide by that and I wouldn't blame them one bit.

We DO need to be open to being told what to do by other countries. By a functioning, more powerful UN. We need to be able to told to stop torturing, using secret prisons through extraordinary rendition and to back off on the military aggression. We are a country like any other country and if other nations want to resolve to tell us what not to do, we should listen.

By the same token, we need to be able to come together with other countries and say "hey, stop killing your witches" once in awhile. Sure, I understand that they do it because they feel it's right, because religion dictates they do it and because culturally it's acceptable. Actually a few days ago I was reading an argument that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with human rights. Too effing bad, IMO. Everyone deserves life.

Here's the problem DeadPool. You see an "us" as just Americans or even just Westerners; I see "us" as human beings. There is no "live and let live" when we're all in this together.

That is so very wrong. No one should be able to tell us what to do, especially the UN. We are a sovereign country. I am not willing to give that up to anyone. The UN was wrong to begin with and is wrong now. Disband the UN.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That is so very wrong. No one should be able to tell us what to do, especially the UN. We are a sovereign country. I am not willing to give that up to anyone. The UN was wrong to begin with and is wrong now. Disband the UN.

I agree with you except for disbanding the UN. The UN is a forum - at times, a valuable one.

[Alex+R 0]

That is so very wrong. No one should be able to tell us what to do, especially the UN. We are a sovereign country. I am not willing to give that up to anyone. The UN was wrong to begin with and is wrong now. Disband the UN.

LOL@"That is so very wrong." (But a light-hearted LOL)

Nobody can tell us what to do, but they should be able to put a lot of pressure on us. Of course, we're not just a sovereign nation, we're also the most powerful one out there at the moment. soooo hey, global politics sure are complicated, huh? I need a cookie...