MSNBC: Blinded woman demands eye-for-eye justice

[Ilion]

MSNBC: Blinded woman demands eye-for-eye justice[^] Iranian welcomes harsh punishment for suitor who blinded her with acid You really need to read the whole thing, and think about it.

[Rob Graham]

Only works if you equate justice with revenge.

modified on Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:21 PM

[kmg365]

Iran is Iran , Islam is Islam, not a suprising article in that context. What I really want to know is why she picked Spain to get medical care. What factors did consider to pick Spain for medical treatment over other countries, including US, Canada, China ect...

[Ilion]

Rob Graham wrote:

Only works if you equate justice with revenge.

And this false attidude is precisely why there is so much (and growing) injustice in western societies.

[Ilion]

kmg365 wrote:

Iran is Iran , Islam is Islam, not a suprising article in that context.

True enough. But we westerners need to keep these things in mind, and stop lying to ourselves about it.

kmg365 wrote:

What I really want to know is why she picked Spain to get medical care. What factors did consider to pick Spain for medical treatment over other countries, including US, Canada, China ect...

Take it back a step further ... why pick *any* western nation to get medical care?

[Bassam Abdul Baki]

She screamed need stop pain or something.

Web - Blog - RSS - Math - BM

[kmg365]

Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:

need stop pain or something.

I re-read article, did not see quote. She had motivation to go overseas to find treatment, but she was not aware of how culture would react to her, and thus escape before her mistreatment occurred. It is kind of scary really, could this happen here, what do I look for as a symptom of a culture in peril?

[kmg365]

I don't disagree with either point, still considering...

[Bassam Abdul Baki]

Didn't use the joke icon.

Web - Blog - RSS - Math - BM

[Rob Graham]

I think this has long been the fundamental premise of justice in mid-eastern societies. Both old testament law (an eye for a eye) and sharia are fundamentally revenge based. Western societies seem to have invented the idea of justice as reformation and societal protection rather than personal revenge, although we clearly don't practice it with any consistency. Continued use of the death penalty obviates any hint of reformation (but is the ultimate in societal protection from the executed).

[Ilion]

Rob Graham wrote:

I think this has long been the fundamental premise of justice in mid-eastern societies. Both old testament law (an eye for a eye) and sharia are fundamentally revenge based.

How little you understand reality ... or justice. Or yourself. The "an eye for an eye" stricture was a limitation of personal vengence and endless vendetta and also a subtle refutation of the idea that some persons are worth more than other persons. Do you not find it amusing that 'secularists' who like to pretend to be scandalized by "an eye for an eye" always seem to overlook "Vengence is mine, says the Lord," and that God commands us as communities to do justice and punish wrong-doers. Do you not find it amusing that 'secularists' who like to pretend to be scandalized by "an eye for an eye" will tend to personally advocate something worse when an individual outrage shocks their (intentionally) blunted consciences? For instance[^]

Rob Graham wrote[^]:

Only works if you equate justice with revenge.

There can be no justice without "revenge." When a society will not enact just vengence up wrong-doers, then the society fragments: individuals begin to impose their own "justice" -- but it be vendetta and rarely just: "You broke my tooth, so I'm "justified" in putting out your eye." "You put my eye, so I'm "justified" in taking off your head." "You killed my son, so I'm "justified" in killing you and your son." "You killed my kin, so I'm "justified" in killing you and your clan." Just what do you imagine justice is, you holier-than-thou[-and-than-God] moral sqiush? Personal squeemishness is not evidence of standing on a higher plane of morality.

modified on Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:47 PM

[Rob Graham]

I see that you have returned to your favorite discussion techniques: ridicule and name calling. I won't trouble you with further discussion as a result, you are not worth the time and trouble.

modified on Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:21 PM

[Ilion]

Rob Graham wrote:

I see that you have returned to your favorite discussion techniques: ridicule and name calling.

And I see that you've returned to *your* favorite mode: falsely whinging about "ridicule and name calling" when I so-easily show the ridiculousness of the attitudes you want to impose upon others but do not want to (as inded you cannot) rationally defend.

Rob Graham wrote:

I won't trouble you with further discussion as a result, you are not worth the time and trouble.

Come now, neither one of us is stupid. You had no desire nor intention to discuss anything. You want to assert, and and not be challenged on it, the ridiculous notion that you are morally superior because you imagine and/or assert that justice can be severed from revenge. edit:

Rob Graham wrote:

I see that you have returned to your favorite discussion techniques: ridicule and name calling.

I do not change: when you assert foolishness I will mock your foolisness. When/if you stop asserting foolishnes we may have something to discuss, but not before. edit2: You poor, transparent thing[^]. You poor, transparent thing[^]. You poor, transparent thing[^]. and so on. The world did not start fifteen minutes ago.

modified on Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:56 PM

[Ilion]

Rob Graham wrote:

Western societies seem to have invented the idea of justice as reformation and societal protection rather than personal revenge,

What utter, multi-level bullshit.

Rob Graham wrote:

... although we clearly don't practice it with any consistency.

That's true enough. And, unless western societies get back to a correct understanding of and practice of justice, things can only get worse. Even the pseudo-justice and anti-justice of 'rehabilitationism' is too harsh for those who imagine that their personal squeemishness is morality ... until, of course, they themselves are personally affected (and then it's generally no-holds-bared vengence they demand).

[martin_hughes]

Ilíon wrote:

The "an eye for an eye" stricture was a limitation of personal vengence and endless vendetta and also a subtle refutation of the idea that some persons are worth more than other persons. Do you not find it amusing that 'secularists' who like to pretend to be scandalized by "an eye for an eye" always seem to overlook "Vengence is mine, says the Lord," and that God commands us as communities to do justice and punish wrong-doers. Do you not find it amusing that 'secularists' who like to pretend to be scandalized by "an eye for an eye" will tend to personally advocate something worse when an individual outrage shocks their (intentionally) blunted consciences? For instance[^]

This is a real truth. The absolutely horrendous injuries inflicted on that poor woman in your original post should, without question, be inflicted on her attacker. Imprisoning him would do nothing, killing him wouldn't punish him and I think we have to dismiss the idea of a deterrent. Where Sharia law has got this wrong is believing men and women are not equal. However, I would not want to be the person who throws acid in his face. I think people often confuse revenge with vengeance, as does the law. Revenge is the personal retaliation of an individual against another - either personally, or through the law - but vengeance, vengeance is to sit in judgement and to meet out punishment on behalf of someone else. No wonder God reserved this for himself.

print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

you are not worth the time and trouble

I actually hoped, briefly, that he'd decided to join the human race. Instead he proves me right when I once compared him to the scorpion who stings the frog even though it means they will both drown. It's time to Diego-script him out of existence, I guess.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Ilion]

Go away: you're pointless, and you're a "troll."

modified on Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:28 PM

[Rob Graham]

That is my conclusion as well.

[Ilion]

Yahoo News: Canada judge: Man not responsible for beheading[^]

WINNIPEG, Manitoba – A Canadian judge ruled Thursday that a man accused ["accused" !!??!!] of beheading and cannibalizing a fellow Greyhound bus passenger is not criminally responsible due to mental illness. ... ... Li stabbed McLean dozens of times and dismembered his body last July while horrified passengers fled. Justice John Scurfield said the attack was "barbaric" but "strongly suggestive of a mental disorder." "He did not appreciate the actions he committed were morally wrong," Scurfield said. Both the prosecution and the defense argued Li can't be held responsible because he had schizophrenia and believed God wanted him to kill McLean because the young man was evil. Li will be institutionalized without a criminal record and reassessed every year by a mental health review board to determine if he is fit for release. ...

Savor that last bit.

modified on Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:30 PM

[Ilion]

martin_hughes wrote:

The absolutely horrendous injuries inflicted on that poor woman in your original post should, without question, be inflicted on her attacker.

But we all rightly recoil at even the thought of doing such a thing, even though it would be just and even though to do nothing is to create and endorse even more injustice.

martin_hughes wrote:

Imprisoning him would do nothing, killing him wouldn't punish him and I think we have to dismiss the idea of a deterrent.

That idea of "deterrence" is problematic in itself, and may well lead to justification of rank injustice. For, after all, imprisoning (or executing) an innocent man is just as effective a "deterrent," and far easier, as going to all the bother of getting the guilty one. The point is that *anything* which attempts to separate 'justice' from "just deserts" must culminate in increasing injustice, and from there to societal break-down and the re-emergence of vendetta. This particular case is a bit tricky, as neither the attacker nor his victim are members of our society and the attack did not take place within our jurisdiction. Plus that you and are are of two different societies. So, to talk about it sensibly and from a standpoint of seeing justice served, we pretty much have to speak as though those points are not the case. Now, throwing acid in the criminal's face (and not merely a drop in one eye) would indeed be just, strictly speaking. But, we all recoil from doing that. But, if we will not do strict/complete justice in a case as this, what will we do? Personally, I think executing him would punish him, and justly so. Even imprisioning him would be just, I think ... if we never set him free (but how frequently does that happen?) without his victim's consent. When a society accepts its moral obligation to exact punishment for such horrific crimes, the object of the justice, properly speaking, is not to make the criminal suffer, but to restore, as best we are able, the society damaged by the criminal's act. The object here is to say ... and to demonstrate ... to the victim and to everyone else that we all recognize and repudiate the injustice done him/her, and that we will cast the offener out of society if that is what it takes to "make things right." If a society will not do this, it destroys itself from within. It cannot be otherwise.

martin_hugh