• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran to stone another Woman to death

Resist the gov.

Active member
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
266
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It works perfectly well, in both cases innocent people were killed in line with cultural norms, who are you to judge the Nazi treatment of Jews?

Well who are you to judge the Muslims treatment of woman?
 

Resist the gov.

Active member
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
266
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here's the thing, we should be judging them for their treatment of women, and we should judge the actions of Nazi's towards the Jews.

Then why are you saying , "who are you to judge the Nazi treatment of Jews"
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Canada has a minimum of 25 years and it uses supermax facilities.

That's not true. There isn't a required minimum.

How is putting someone to death more humanitarian than imprisoning them? That's some weird logic there, kiddo.

As long as Canada is still sentencing people to life imprisonment in supermax facilities, you have no business pointing the finger.

We're talking about the death penalty (i.e. stoning), not life in prison? Maybe you should relook at what this thread is about.

Intentionally stoning an innocent woman to death is no different than accidently sentencing a innocent person to life imprisonment.

She's not innocent according to her country's laws.

Yes I know by sponsoring the Khmer Rouge's principle opposition we are responsible for the Khmer Rouge coming to power. :roll:

Hmmm that is not what happened, but you are free to read and believe whatever version of history you wish.
 

Agent Ferris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
915
Location
Past the edge of the universe, through the singula
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's not true. There isn't a required minimum.

7-25 before parole eligibility, and those in the supermax are not going to get parole.

How is putting someone to death more humanitarian than imprisoning them? That's some weird logic there, kiddo.

Try out 23 hour lock down for a month and tell me you wouldn't rather die than do that for the rest of your natural life.

We're talking about the death penalty (i.e. stoning), not life in prison? Maybe you should relook at what this thread is about.

If stoning innocent women to death is the moral equivalent to executing murderers then sentencing murderers to life imprisonment is the moral equivalent to executing murderers. That moral relativism thing is a real bitch isn't it?

She's not innocent according to her country's laws.

That's kind of the entire point here. According to any rational human being having sex is not a crime and certainly not a crime to be punished by death.

Hmmm that is not what happened, but you are free to read and believe whatever version of history you wish.

We didn't support Lon Nol?
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
7-25 before parole eligibility, and those in the supermax are not going to get parole.

Then that makes the minimum requirement 7 years, not 25. Do you have trouble admitting when you're wrong?

I also don't know why you are harping on the supermax thing. We're talking about the death penalty. Even in a supermax, a conviction can be appealed. Also, the vast majority of people in a supermax have the opportunity to transfer to maximum security prisons with good behavior or demonstrated progress in rehabilitation. Since supermaxes are a new phenomenon, you're going to have trouble proving that any prisoner has stayed in one for life.

Try out 23 hour lock down for a month and tell me you wouldn't rather die than do that for the rest of your natural life.

There are differing views on this, and there can be because the prisoner is still alive and kicking. When they're dead they're just gone. Besides, even holding them in a supermax is more cost effective than putting them to death.

If stoning innocent women to death is the moral equivalent to executing murderers then sentencing murderers to life imprisonment is the moral equivalent to executing murderers.

You just made this up in order to equivocate, but I don't think it's what you truly believe. Most people with life sentences have the opportunity for parole, and while they're in prison they can even get an education, join rehab programs, and try to turn their lives around. A life sentence doesn't necessarily mean a life of torment. But if you execute them, then they're dead and there is zero chance of progression.

So no, a life sentence is not equal to or worse than the death penalty by any stretch of the imagination.

That's kind of the entire point here. According to any rational human being having sex is not a crime and certainly not a crime to be punished by death.

According to any rational human being that thinks logically, executing someone for a crime and "valuing human life" do not belong in the same sentence, and yet in the U.S. people seem to think that's the case. So yeah, like you said, moral relativism is a bitch. I'm sure there are hard line conservatives in Iran that support stoning for pre-marital sex just like there are conservatives in the U.S. who are staunchly pro-death penalty for purely emotional reasons.

You are trying to apply rational rules to an inherently irrational system. You forget that you're dealing with human beings here. It's mainly why I am pointing out the hypocrisy of some people pointing the finger at Iran for their irrational system, yet seeing no problem with their own country's irrational system.
 

Agent Ferris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
915
Location
Past the edge of the universe, through the singula
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Then that makes the minimum requirement 7 years, not 25. Do you have trouble admitting when you're wrong?

I also don't know why you are harping on the supermax thing. We're talking about the death penalty. Even in a supermax, a conviction can be appealed. Also, the vast majority of people in a supermax have the opportunity to transfer to maximum security prisons with good behavior or demonstrated progress in rehabilitation. Since supermaxes are a new phenomenon, you're going to have trouble proving that any prisoner has stayed in one for life.

People with life sentences are sentenced to supermax facilities, that is far more inhumane than the death penalty. Spending even two years in 23 hour lockdown is worse than the death penalty.

There are differing views on this, and there can be because the prisoner is still alive and kicking. When they're dead they're just gone. Besides, even holding them in a supermax is more cost effective than putting them to death.

Putting them in a supermax is less humanitarian than the death penalty, so I guess we're all on equal footing with Iran who goes out its way to intentionally stone women to death. If Americans have no business pointing the finger at Iran then your country has no business of pointing the finger at the U.S..

You just made this up in order to equivocate, but I don't think it's what you truly believe. Most people with life sentences have the opportunity for parole, and while they're in prison they can even get an education, join rehab programs, and try to turn their lives around.

People in a supermax facility will not get paroled and they are on 23 hour lock down.

A life sentence doesn't necessarily mean a life of torment. But if you execute them, then they're dead and there is zero chance of progression.

You mean how like you try to equivocate executing murderers to going out of your way and intentionally executing an innocent woman?

So no, a life sentence is not equal to or worse than the death penalty by any stretch of the imagination.\

A life sentence in a supermax is worse than the death penalty by any stretch of the imagination.


According to any rational human being that thinks logically, executing someone for a crime and "valuing human life" do not belong in the same sentence, and yet in the U.S. people seem to think that's the case.

For any rational person "valuing human life" and placing someone in a supermax facility for a life do not belong in the same sentence.

So yeah, like you said, moral relativism is a bitch. I'm sure there are hard line conservatives in Iran that support stoning for pre-marital sex just like there are conservatives in the U.S. who are staunchly pro-death penalty for purely emotional reasons.

You are trying to apply rational rules to an inherently irrational system. You forget that you're dealing with human beings here. It's mainly why I am pointing out the hypocrisy of some people pointing the finger at Iran for their irrational system, yet seeing no problem with their own country's irrational system.

The U.S. is no better than Iran who intentionally goes out of its way to execute innocent women and Canada is no better than the U.S. because it places people in supermax facilities under 23 hour lock down which to any rational person is far worse than the death penalty.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jump on a plane and fly to Iran.

That is not a bad idea. I did it. I didnt do it specifically to protest against stonings. It was more to experience what it is actually like to be there. It was a mystery country for me, appart from what I had read in the media, and a couple of books and movies I had seen about it.

But, as far as politics and protesting against things such as Islamic barbaric behaviour, our going there can do something. We cant openly protest, unless we dont mind being arrested, but with so few tourists going there, those who do are the face of the west. When we go there, we are the west, as far as many Iranians are concerned. They see that we are real people, who have real lives, and like food, music, clothes, have families..., just like they do. It helps lessen the concept of many that we in the west are all the enemies of Iran, who are agressing and supporting its invasion by the US, and often prompts them consider if there might be something good about how we live, and our more free political systems.

As well at that, there are the religious Iranians and the more progressively minded ones. The progressively minded ones, which are a lot of them affiliate with western lifestyle more than the rigid, strict Islamic lifestyle. The progressively minded ones will immediately connect with you and treat you like you are the same as they are, rather than a foreigner who is different.

Here are some emails I sent to my boyfriend while I was in Iran, for anyone who may be interested.
Emails from Iran
 
Last edited:

Agent Ferris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
915
Location
Past the edge of the universe, through the singula
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is not a bad idea. I did it. I didnt do it specifically to protest against stonings. It was more to experience what it is actually like to be there. It was a mystery country for me, appart from what I had read in the media, and a couple of books and movies I had seen about it.

But, as far as politics and protesting against things such as Islamic barbaric behaviour, our going there can do something. We cant openly protest, unless we dont mind being arrested, but with so few tourists going there, those who do are the face of the west. When we go there, we are the west, as far as many Iranians are concerned. They see that we are real people, who have real lives, and like food, music, clothes, have families..., just like they do. It helps lessen the concept of many that we in the west are all the enemies of Iran, who are agressing and supporting its invasion by the US, and often prompts them consider if there might be something good about how we live, and our more free political systems.

As well at that, there are the religious Iranians and the more progressively minded ones. The progressively minded ones, which are a lot of them affiliate with western lifestyle more than the rigid, strict Islamic lifestyle. The progressively minded ones will immediately connect with you and treat you like you are the same as they are, rather than a foreigner who is different.

Here are some emails I sent to my boyfriend while I was in Iran, for anyone who may be interested.
Emails from Iran

Openly protesting under the fear of being arrested are a bit contradictory don't you think? Anyways ya I'm sure there are plenty of liberal minded peoples in Iran perhaps even in the majority but the problem is that they don't have the ability to change their government through peaceful means.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Openly protesting under the fear of being arrested are a bit contradictory don't you think?
You cant voice you opinion in public in Iran, about certain issues, or you will be arrested. This is what I mean.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Anyways ya I'm sure there are plenty of liberal minded peoples in Iran perhaps even in the majority but the problem is that they don't have the ability to change their government through peaceful means.

Maybe they can do it by peaceful means. They can tell what is happening, and we can listen and then protest by peaceful means for them, when we are not in Iran.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
...but the problem is that they don't have the ability to change their government through peaceful means.

I think, for the oppressive governments, their days are numbered. It is the way the world is moving. People in even the most repressed countries know they could have more freedom because they see others having it, and it is only a matter of time, before the governments will have to step down and allow it, because it will simply take too much police and millitary to keep people oppressed, and it will affect them more and more economically as sanctions increase, and they fail to create healthy trading partnerships with the worlds wealthiest countries.

When we visit places like Iran, Iranians can see the difference in the amounts of freedom we have compared with what they have, just because we are there. For Iranians to even get a passport, it is ridiculously expensive and complicated. Also, hardly any country will give an Iranian passport holder a tourist visa easily or at all most of the time. By being in Iran, we are showing anyone who doubts it that we have so much more, than they do, and this alone increases the tension and pressure against the government.

This is all we can do as individuals, though. But, peaceful protest by individuals on both sides of the Iron Curtain was one factor which influenced the end of it, so why wouldnt it work for other countries...
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People with life sentences are sentenced to supermax facilities, that is far more inhumane than the death penalty. Spending even two years in 23 hour lockdown is worse than the death penalty.

If you ask people in supermax prisons if they'd prefer the death penalty, virtually none of them would say yes. Even for people in long term isolation, self-preservation is paramount. So your subjective non-sense doesn't add up. Any living being faced with death will want to live.

Putting them in a supermax is less humanitarian than the death penalty, so I guess we're all on equal footing with Iran who goes out its way to intentionally stone women to death. If Americans have no business pointing the finger at Iran then your country has no business of pointing the finger at the U.S.

If this is your attempt to make a dig at my nationality in order to get even, it's a sad one.

People in a supermax facility will not get paroled and they are on 23 hour lock down.

Two of Canada's supermax facilities are for non-Canadian security risks, especially ones that are about to be deported. The third houses Canadians.

As I said, with good behavior many can be transferred to maximum security where they have more freedoms. Many who end up in supermax prisons are there because they committed crimes while in the prison system and temporary solitary confinement was not enough to disuade them. Thus, with good behavior they can also travel backwards.

You mean how like you try to equivocate executing murderers to going out of your way and intentionally executing an innocent woman?

I am anti-death penalty for any reason, so yes, they are both the same in my eyes. I will say that executing the woman for pre-martial sex is immoral to me, but I do not live in Iran and so I am not bound by its laws.

A life sentence in a supermax is worse than the death penalty by any stretch of the imagination.

You can say this over and over but it won't make it true, whereas I have provided actual reasoning for why the death penalty is immoral regardless of how it's carried out and for what reason. You haven't really provided a persuasive argument as to why the two are en par, aside from your say so. You can try to distort logic all you want and you may even believe it but it simply does not add up. Nice try though.

For any rational person "valuing human life" and placing someone in a supermax facility for a life do not belong in the same sentence.

So you are basically saying that instead of putting people in supermax prisons we should be executing them because it is more humane. As I said earlier, ask any inmate if they want to die and you will get the same answer. If they really had a death wish they would just pick a fight with an armed guard, another inmate, or commit suicide.

Your argument is baseless.

The U.S. is no better than Iran who intentionally goes out of its way to execute innocent women and Canada is no better than the U.S. because it places people in supermax facilities under 23 hour lock down which to any rational person is far worse than the death penalty.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. A dead person has no reprieve or recourse. At least in a supermax there may be systems in place to allow them to go to a lower security level and have more freedoms. People largely end up in supermaxes because they refuse to obey the rules of the internal system. They know that murdering other inmates will get them into hot water but they do it anyway. Their punishment is assured, whereas the application of the death penalty is entirely inconsistent and emotional, and is based on revenge.
 

Agent Ferris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
915
Location
Past the edge of the universe, through the singula
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you ask people in supermax prisons if they'd prefer the death penalty, virtually none of them would say yes. Even for people in long term isolation, self-preservation is paramount. So your subjective non-sense doesn't add up. Any living being faced with death will want to live.

Actually quite a few of them would say yes which is why they have such large suicide rates. And regardless this is all subjective, and IMO executing people is more humane than sentencing them to life in a supermax, your opinion is irrelevant.

If this is your attempt to make a dig at my nationality in order to get even, it's a sad one.

You have no right to point fingers at the U.S. since the U.S. has no right to point fingers at Iran.

Two of Canada's supermax facilities are for non-Canadian security risks, especially ones that are about to be deported. The third houses Canadians.

Those facilities are less humane than the death penalty.

As I said, with good behavior many can be transferred to maximum security where they have more freedoms. Many who end up in supermax prisons are there because they committed crimes while in the prison system and temporary solitary confinement was not enough to disuade them. Thus, with good behavior they can also travel backwards.

No that's not how it works in many cases people are sentenced specifically to supermax facilities.

I am anti-death penalty for any reason, so yes, they are both the same in my eyes. I will say that executing the woman for pre-martial sex is immoral to me, but I do not live in Iran and so I am not bound by its laws.

Life imprisonment in my eyes is more immoral than the death penalty.

You can say this over and over but it won't make it true, whereas I have provided actual reasoning for why the death penalty is immoral regardless of how it's carried out and for what reason. You haven't really provided a persuasive argument as to why the two are en par, aside from your say so. You can try to distort logic all you want and you may even believe it but it simply does not add up. Nice try though.

Sentencing someone to solitary life in a box is quite possibly those most extreme punishment short of being tortured to death as can be imagined.


So you are basically saying that instead of putting people in supermax prisons we should be executing them because it is more humane.

I am saying that it is far more humane.

As I said earlier, ask any inmate if they want to die and you will get the same answer. If they really had a death wish they would just pick a fight with an armed guard, another inmate, or commit suicide.

They are under constant surveillance due to the high rate of suicide attempts, when they attempt suicide they are put in restraints on top of being in solitary confinement.

Your argument is baseless.


Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. A dead person has no reprieve or recourse. At least in a supermax there may be systems in place to allow them to go to a lower security level and have more freedoms. People largely end up in supermaxes because they refuse to obey the rules of the internal system. They know that murdering other inmates will get them into hot water but they do it anyway. Their punishment is assured, whereas the application of the death penalty is entirely inconsistent and emotional, and is based on revenge.


Some are sentenced specifically to supermax facilities. A person sentenced to life imprisonment in a supermax facility is a dead man walking, and to force a person to live in solitary confinement for even 10 years is more inhumane than the death penalty.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually quite a few of them would say yes which is why they have such large suicide rates.

Source?

And regardless this is all subjective, and IMO executing people is more humane than sentencing them to life in a supermax, your opinion is irrelevant.

If my opinion is irrelevant then why do you argue against it?

You have no right to point fingers at the U.S. since the U.S. has no right to point fingers at Iran.

The latter is what I have been trying to say this whole time, so thanks for finally agreeing.

No that's not how it works in many cases people are sentenced specifically to supermax facilities.

It's not black and white. There is more than one reason why people end up in supermax prisons.

Life imprisonment in my eyes is more immoral than the death penalty.

Do you find the death penalty itself immoral when not compared to life imprisonment?

Sentencing someone to solitary life in a box is quite possibly those most extreme punishment short of being tortured to death as can be imagined.

I'm not really supportive of supermax prisons either, but our views part ways when it comes to you thinking the death penalty is less severe.

I am saying that it is far more humane.

Okay. I am saying it's not.

They are under constant surveillance due to the high rate of suicide attempts, when they attempt suicide they are put in restraints on top of being in solitary confinement.

Source?

Some are sentenced specifically to supermax facilities. A person sentenced to life imprisonment in a supermax facility is a dead man walking, and to force a person to live in solitary confinement for even 10 years is more inhumane than the death penalty.

Very, very few go straight to supermax prisons. I know this to be factually true as my uncle is a corrections officer. People who cannot abide by the rules of the incarceration system at lower security levels and who have repeatedly demonstrated that they will, in cold blood, try to kill other inmates or guards, usually go into isolation. Again, their own actions determine that.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Your argument is baseless.

What really is baseless, is for anyone to argue against the worthiness of particular human beings, of the human rights standards that should apply to all human beings.

This discussion should have ended long ago, because it should be taken for granted, that throwing stones at somebody until (s)he is dead is wrong. There should be no other opinions.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What really is baseless, is for anyone to argue against the worthiness of particular human beings, of the human rights standards that should apply to all human beings.

This discussion should have ended long ago, because it should be taken for granted, that throwing stones at somebody until (s)he is dead is wrong. There should be no other opinions.

That has never been an issue in this discussion. I think we can all agree that stoning someone to death is awful. My problem is with the moral equivocation based on their execution methods vs. ours, as if we are more righteous and justified in killing our prisoners. If the woman had been a murderer I think you would find that there would be more people in support of her being stoned to death, and to me that is hypocrisy in action.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My problem is with the moral equivocation based on their execution methods vs. ours, as if we are more righteous and justified in killing our prisoners.
But, not everybody in the discussion makes this moral equivocation. I certainly dont. Anyone who does, simply does not have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of others, long enough to consider what they are supporting. Maybe they really are so insensitive, or maybe they are arguing for the sake of it.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But, not everybody in the discussion makes this moral equivocation. I certainly dont. Anyone who does, simply does not have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of others, long enough to consider what they are supporting. Maybe they really are so insensitive, or maybe they are arguing for the sake of it.

This summarizes things nicely.
 
Top Bottom