Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. MSNBC: Blinded woman demands eye-for-eye justice

MSNBC: Blinded woman demands eye-for-eye justice

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
com
23 Posts 8 Posters 5 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • K 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?

    B Offline
    B Offline
    Bassam Abdul Baki
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    Didn't use the joke icon.

    Web - Blog - RSS - Math - BM

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • I 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.

      R Offline
      R Offline
      Rob Graham
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      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).

      I 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • R 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).

        I Offline
        I Offline
        Ilion
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        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

        R M F 3 Replies Last reply
        0
        • I 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

          R Offline
          R Offline
          Rob Graham
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          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

          I O 3 Replies Last reply
          0
          • R 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

            I Offline
            I Offline
            Ilion
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            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

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • R 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).

              I Offline
              I Offline
              Ilion
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              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).

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • I 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

                M Offline
                M Offline
                martin_hughes
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                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?

                I O 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • R 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

                  O Offline
                  O Offline
                  Oakman
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  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.

                  I R 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • O 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.

                    I Offline
                    I Offline
                    Ilion
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

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

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

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • O 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.

                      R Offline
                      R Offline
                      Rob Graham
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      That is my conclusion as well.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • R 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

                        I Offline
                        I Offline
                        Ilion
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #19

                        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

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • M 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?

                          I Offline
                          I Offline
                          Ilion
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #20

                          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

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • M 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?

                            O Offline
                            O Offline
                            Oakman
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #21

                            martin_hughes wrote:

                            I think people often confuse revenge with vengeance

                            I think people often make the mistake of thinking that the ancient Judeans spoke Elizabethan English. Talking about variations on a single root word in English is, with due respect, not of much use in understanding a passage that was probably written in Aramaic, although it's possible we can trace it no further back than some form of Greek.

                            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.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • I 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

                              F Offline
                              F Offline
                              fred_
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #22

                              who died and appointed you judge? Opinions are like as... and this is pure gargabe.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • R Rob Graham

                                Only works if you equate justice with revenge.

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

                                V Offline
                                V Offline
                                Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #23

                                Rob Graham wrote:

                                justice with revenge

                                But isn't there a saying like 'Tit for Tat' too?

                                Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
                                Tech Gossips
                                The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep!

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                Reply
                                • Reply as topic
                                Log in to reply
                                • Oldest to Newest
                                • Newest to Oldest
                                • Most Votes


                                • Login

                                • Don't have an account? Register

                                • Login or register to search.
                                • First post
                                  Last post
                                0
                                • Categories
                                • Recent
                                • Tags
                                • Popular
                                • World
                                • Users
                                • Groups