http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/05/eye-for-an-eye-iran-blinds-man-who-carried-out-acid-attack </blockquote>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/03/06/iran-carries-out-an-eye-for-an-eye-punishment-literally/ What does GC think? What is the right punishment or better yet approach to this sort of situation? If someone blinds your eyes, especially by throwing acid in your face, should you have the right to utilize doctors in such manner? What about human rights? Or has the attacker forfeited that right when he took hes victim's rights away? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. But then again I didnt have acid thrown in face and blinding me, so I dont exactly have the most accurate perspective to say anything one way or the other. If as a Doctor you do this, how can you still be called a Doctor? Interested to see what blades think on here
It certainly is an interesting form of justice, same logic as the death penalty. Two wrongs don't make a right but if someone blinded one of mine i don't know how i would feel.
We're talking about two different worlds. It is certainly cruel but I wouldn't consider it barbaric. That is their civilization and that is their form of order. They know the consequences and people that "acid bath" are scum of the earth. In that part of the world, yes, he deserved it. Here? Never. We need to stop looking at the world through our "1st world bias". We can't apply the norms of our civilization to that of another and scrutinize them for it. Not too long ago we were tar and feathering people as well as hang, drawn and quartering.
Clearly this type of thing is driven by the theocratic culture and society that Iran has. This is religion and state sanctioned violence and nothing about it is good or just. If acid is thrown in your face, throwing acid in their face won't fix your face. Although, throwing acid in someone's face is clearly a crime, which a step-up for Iran, because I'm always seeing people there getting arrested for non-crimes like dancing.
Do you really believe that when Islam was started- that it was started by short sighted fanatics? See when you do the arithmetic, there is what a billion Muslims worldwide? What % of the total is actually represented by these fanatics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche If I drink and drive and I ran someone over, should we attack cars and alcohol? Is this analogy not an accurate depiction? Lets ban cars and alcohol and no one will drink and drive. Forget personal responsibility and edumacation
For what that scumbag did with acid to his victim, he should be hung - blinding him in one eye isn't a severe enough punishment. He's garbage, just kill him.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying here. My point was that this type of behavior is part of a culture tied to Iran's theocracy. It wasn't an attack on Islam as a whole -- although I would have no problem doing that in a different discussion -- many several Muslim country's do not enforce Sharia law.
Do you ever wonder the reasons behind what he did? What drove him? The sociological environment he was brought up in? An excerpt from Kurt Vonnegut's "Hocus Pocus" : See sometimes, the people that deserve compassion and understanding the least actually need it the most.
It sounded like you were doing exactly that when you said: So since the op is tied to religion and laws then why not discuss it? If you firmly believe the problem largely lies in books and what is written in them (Im assuming here of course that its how you personally define such an abstract term "religion") and not what an individual ( humans are individual animals are we not?) person's take on it then I would very much like that to be explained to me.
I'm sure that's all very interesting, but if he blinded and scarred somebody, who was innocent of any violent wrongdoing to him, he deserves to be executed, or at the very least the punishment that they're giving him. The rule of the streets here is, if somebody hits you, you have the right to hit him back, TWICE - once for the hit that he gave you, and the second one as further punishment for doing it in the first place.
Oh come on... I agree that we are the definition of hypocrisy in the west, but ethics should be applicable in the vacuum of space - meaning that what that person did is just as immoral in Antarctica as it is in the depths of the Amazon Rainforest, or in a New York alleyway.
I'm simply saying our ethics and theirs are worlds apart by centuries of difference in culture. To apply our ethics world wide is a very western-centric way of thinking. Not everyone is on the same page or seemingly in the same time. Applying our standards to other parts of the world is like applying 21st century standards to the 19th and 20th centuries. The only way to positively influence humanitarianism world wide I believe is education and a nurturing community. We will never get there. It's certainly immoral but in that world it is just.
Okay, now I completely understand what you are saying. In addition, leading by example is probably the only effective means of changing the world, and as a whole we aren't doing our part. While we can condemn these sorts of brutal and vindictive means of achieving 'justice' we still have the majority of the world's prison population and set new trends in world domination, torture black-sites, and government overthrow. So, yeah, I see what you are saying.
The problem is that it is an authoritarian regime that applies their version of Islamic Sharia on everyone regardless of their own beliefs. Information is centrally controlled, public opinions are state-sanctioned, cultural values are centrally controlled, and human rights are constantly violated. You could replace Sharia with any religious code and it'd be as much of a problem. In contrast, the Soviet Union was an authoritarian regime that had state-sanctioned atheism. The issue is a having a central authority enforcing their immorality on everybody, in Iran's case it's Shia Islam. I don't see the harm in pointing out bad ideas whether they come from a religious text or secular. I think claiming divine right in order to rule over others is archaic and especially shitty. I feel like you're taking my posts as an attack specifically against Islam and that's not what I'm trying to say.
Thank you for clarifying that. So in other words, it isnt religion's fault per se, but stupid fallible petulant humans yes? In my opinion, I dont feel like you fully addressed my post. I was trying to ascertain whether you personally believed that religion was actually at fault here, as Ive felt that is what you were implying implicitly. Can you unequivocally say whether or not you actually believe that religion is the actual problem here? and why? From your last reply I gather that is not the case. I apologize if I misread your posts. Have a great Sunday
LOL Smokingp nothing everything is an attack on the middle east or its way of life. Overcompensating a bit are we? Lets see if you can answer this one: Do you know exactly who you remind me of? On a somewhat un related note: I hope youre in good enough spirits to know Im just messing around here. I agree that the death penalty represents the same sort of backwards asinine logic.
I suppose you could put it that way. Since mankind predates religion and religion is man-made I would say that it is just an expression of human ignorance and fallibility. In the end it is not religion, but humans that act on their religious thinking that affects others. History shows that religious thinking can be very dangerous and it has a lot of blood on it's hands. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying all religious thinking is bad or leads to bad things, but I can say with certainty that religion is a tool that has been used by governments and those in power to exploit the masses and to commit crimes against humanity. In the end, us humans only have ourselves to blame. We're such an advanced species in so many ways, yet we hold ourselves back in other ways. Also, you have a great Sunday as well