Law and order

Author: RemyBrown

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6

The assaulter should be whipped like 50x.

She is a lesbian that looks like a lesbian; maybe she munches carpets; I don't know.  You can't beat someone up for this, especially to the extent where she's in the emergency room over it.

The assaulter should be whipped 50x.
#2
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
Thats terrible what happened. The attacker is obviously some religious radical.
#3
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
I will assume Christian.
#4
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 1,368
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
Just want to say, idc the site politics, for now I am a mod of some sort officially.

In this capacity I want to explain a fundamental issue with a thread like this in how it is presented within a debate website.

The 'other side' is either forced to take defending a violent hate crime or is somehow because of your wording, meant to support Sharia style lashings to the point the punished may die and definitely will have long term bodily damage.

In other words, I am confused at why you force such dichotomies in your hateful debate threads.

It is also site bannable for anyone to defend the crime here. So what is the debate? Is it the lashings?
Topic's author
#5
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@AdaptableRatman
The 'other side' is either forced to take defending a violent hate crime or is somehow because of your wording, meant to support Sharia style lashings to the point the punished may die and definitely will have long term bodily damage.
I think the guy should be lashed because I believe as a matter of principle that the penalty for brutal assault should be lashings (because the alternative is jail and I don't want my tax dollars taking care of a bad person because prison is a reward if you're homeless because you get free room and board).  If this was a straight white redneck man (defined as Person A) assaulting Person B (nonbinary pansexual black with green hair), then I will simultaneously think Person B is cringe and an eyesore while advocating lashings for Person A because you shouldn't be allowed to beat someone up for being an eyesore and you shouldn't get taxpayer money taking care of you if you are a bad person.  Taxpayer money should be for those that improve society (teachers, firefighters, police officers); not for those that make it worse (soldiers, criminals).

In other words, I am confused at why you force such dichotomies in your hateful debate threads.
I personally don't think it's hateful, but all republican and libertarian talking points are hateful to you (and you would want them banned), so I don't care if you find it hateful.

It is also site bannable for anyone to defend the crime here. So what is the debate? Is it the lashings?
It's not a debate unless someone disagrees with me; but it's me showing that yes, this lesbian might be munching on carpets, BUT if you munch on carpets and look ugly doing it, then that still doesn't justify some asshole (even if this asshole happened to be a white trailer park guy) beating you up.  
#6
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 244
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@RemyBrown
You may as well say you want the young men to be put to death.
#7
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 244
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@RemyBrown
How do soldiers make society worse?
Topic's author
#8
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@yachilviveyachali
You may as well say you want the young men to be put to death.
Why would I say that?

How do soldiers make society worse?
Because soldiers and the military put young men to death.
#9
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 244
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@RemyBrown
Why would I say that?
You say the state is wasting money when they are put in prison. What is the alternative? Your 50 lashes? The Islamic countries that administer lashes include time in prison. 

Because soldiers and the military put young men to death.
It is the government who puts them to death, and there are times you have gained from this. When conscription is not mandatory, it is the choice of the soldier.

I am afraid your nation would be invaded if you had no military. The world is not a benevolent place.
Topic's author
#10
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@yachilviveyachali
 What is the alternative? Your 50 lashes? The Islamic countries that administer lashes include time in prison. 
The Muslim countries also created the number system.  There is nothing wrong with bringing the best ideas from other parts of the world and committing cultural appropriation.

I am afraid your nation would be invaded if you had no military.
If the world is one nation (which I support happening), then who is doing the invading?  It's like Ohio building a military because they're worried Michigan would take the Toledo strip.

But, who would invade the US?  China?  If China won't invade Mongolia, then how could they invade America?

The world is not a benevolent place.
Lets change that.
#11
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 244
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@RemyBrown
If the world is one nation (which I support happening), then who is doing the invading?  It's like Ohio building a military because they're worried Michigan would take the Toledo strip.
It isn't one nation, and never will be. 

But, who would invade the US?  China?  If China won't invade Mongolia, then how could they invade America?
Any country could if you no longer have a military. Maybe Britain will want you again?

Mexico? Canada? Russia? Russia may do it to stop you from ever being able to meddle in Ukraine again. Israel? They need US to have a military, which is why they may invade. 
Topic's author
#12
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@yachilviveyachali
It isn't one nation, and never will be. 
Why not?

Any country could if you no longer have a military. Maybe Britain will want you again?

Mexico? Canada? Russia? Russia may do it to stop you from ever being able to meddle in Ukraine again. Israel? They need US to have a military, which is why they may invade. 
Not any country.  Why would Nepal invade America?  No reason.

If the:
  1. British won't invade Ireland.
  2. Mexico won't invade Guatemala.
  3. Canada won't invade Greenland.
  4. Russia won't invade Mongolia.

Then how can any of these places invade America?