Extremist ideology encounters a technical stalemate

stevejazzx

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Saudi+judge+seeks+doctor+break+spine+prisoner/3420316/story.html

What will it take for hardcore ideologists to relinquish their insane beliefs?
The likelihood is that breaking his spine would kill him so they don't quite know what to do with him. It's somewhat encouraging to hear that some of the hospitals involved are refusing to carry out the procedure on ethical grounds. However the fact that a judge in the year 2010 is seeking to have a mans spine surgically broken is testament to nothing more than insanity of certain religious belief. How can anyone involved with such barbarism imagine that they are following the right path in their lives or a path towards an benevolent creator?

Zillah

Sharia law over my cold dead body.

He should have gotten more than 7 months in prison for paralysing someone though.

MagicMarker

At least he's not looking to break the man's spine with a baseball bat! Some would call this progression.

Galvasean

There's a strange logic to it...

Mark Hamill

Galvasean wrote: »

There's a strange logic to it...

A barbaric one. "Eye for an Eye" is not about justice, its revenge.
When a fictional character in a comic book movie has a clearer view on justice than a supposedly modern culture, you know something is wrong:

Rachel Dawes, Batman Begins wrote:

Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about you making yourself feel better, which is why we have an impartial system.

stevejazzx

Time for some revision of the 'eye for an eye' ideology.
Should be 'eye for an eye or any other viable body part in situations where exact retribution casues medical anomaly' .....doesn't have quite the same ring to it!

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A barbaric one. "Eye for an Eye" is not about justice, its revenge.

With the idea being that revenge is just.

When a fictional character in a comic book movie has a clearer view on justice than a supposedly modern culture, you know something is wrong:

With a non-fictional person inserting their worldview into the fictional characters mouth? Not that revenge isn't harmonious - there's an undeniable balance achieved with eye for an eye.

stevejazzx

antiskeptic wrote: »

With the idea being that revenge is just.




With a non-fictional person inserting their worldview into the fictional characters mouth? Not that revenge isn't harmonious - there's an undeniable balance achieved with eye for an eye.

:rolleyes:
No there's not.
An eye for eye just makes the whole world blind.
Sorry for the trite cliche but the man was right.

I mean think about it; there are endless scenarios involved. There are particular situations, errors, accidents etc. where the process deosn't even work on a technical level. Now just add that to the actual fact that the process itself is medieval, barbaric, ignorant, disgusting and backward.
Were you being serious? Wow....

antiskeptic

stevejazzx wrote: »

An eye for eye just makes the whole world blind.

Not necessarily. And even if it did, it would be the result of the world being prepared to accept those consequences.

Justice is blind anyway (or is supposed to be). It doesn't concern itself with such things.

I mean think about it; there are endless scenarios involved. There are particular situations, errors, accidents etc. where the process deosn't even work on a technical level. Now just add that to the actual fact that the process itself is medieval, barbaric, ignorant, disgusting and backward.
Were you being serious? Wow....

The point behind eye4eye - as a form of justice - has more to do with the idea of revenge-as-justice than concerning itself with the equivilentness of the retribution.

stevejazzx

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not necessarily. And even if it did, it would be the result of the world being prepared to accept those consequences.

Justice is blind anyway (or is supposed to be). It doesn't concern itself with such things.

Yes it does; this is one of the main reasons why we don't have the death penalty.

as wrote:

The point behind eye4eye - as a form of justice - has more to do with the idea of revenge-as-justice than concerning itself with the equivilentness of the retribution.

Yes but the processes of it are flawed from the off; also no matter how ideal this idea is at root it's open to far broader interpretation which more often than not forgets the notion of revenge-as-justice (in your words) and becomes simply revenge often, with added malice. No matter which way you paint it the idea is a childish one and it takes little debate to show it as such.

fitz0

Glad to see the doctors refusing to be a part of it, or at least their superiors refusing for them.