#973.Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Do you think an issue on how the wives and children of fundamentalist terrorists should be treated would be viable?
Advertisement
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:14 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:19 am
by The Free Joy State » Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:23 am
by Frieden-und Freudenland » Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:54 am
The Free Joy State wrote:
I'm not sure -- and FuF, please correct me if I'm wrong -- that that's what she was getting at.
#973 is a moral dilemma: shoot a known terrorist knowing his children are in the way and liable to be hit.
I thought what FuF was proposing was nearer to, someone's spouse has been convicted of terrorism charges, but they are presumed innocent. Does @@NAME@@ assume that they must have known what their spouse was up to, or not?
If so, I don't think we have an issue like that.
EDIT: Ninja'd. As CWA says, it would be a toughie to make funny, but definitely go for it if you've got an idea.
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:49 am
The problem here is that it's "more complex" in a way that justifies treating each case differently, rather than having a one-size-fits-all attitude towards all terrostists' wives. I figure that's something for the courts (or lynch mobs, where appropiate) to figure out, not the central government.Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Also, it is possible that there are also women who have been abducted and forcefully wed to a terrorist - so the issue is more complex.
by The Free Joy State » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:14 pm
Trotterdam wrote:The problem here is that it's "more complex" in a way that justifies treating each case differently, rather than having a one-size-fits-all attitude towards all terrostists' wives. I figure that's something for the courts (or lynch mobs, where appropiate) to figure out, not the central government.Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Also, it is possible that there are also women who have been abducted and forcefully wed to a terrorist - so the issue is more complex.
The issue I linked offers a much better justification than most about why you might consider punishing these people even though they are "not under suspicion" / "presumed innocent".
by Phydios » Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:08 am
Varola wrote:Are there any issues that acknowledge they break the fourth-wall?
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
by Candlewhisper Archive » Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:36 am
by Kozmix » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:17 am
by Trotterdam » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:42 am
#183 Buy A Better Baby?Kozmix wrote:Are there issues on gene editing or something of that variety?
by Australian rePublic » Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:12 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:28 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Are there any issues about which bathroom/changeroom transgender people should use (i.e. male/female)?
by Australian rePublic » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:46 am
by Frieden-und Freudenland » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:47 am
by Trotterdam » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:03 am
#431 is about there being too many stray animals, with the implication that this is making life hard on them due to overcrowding. However, there isn't an issue about people deliberately subjecting stray animals to abuse (except for the crazy option(s) on #431).Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Is there an issue about the mistreatment of stray animals?
by Varola » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:53 am
by Trotterdam » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:33 am
Not directly. It's brought up as a joke effect line on #42.Varola wrote:Is there any issue that talks about elevator music?
by Australian rePublic » Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:37 pm
Varola wrote:Is there any issue that talks about elevator music?
by Varola » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:51 pm
by Australian rePublic » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:27 pm
Njobjlbjlbjlbjkbjoj kobjo jo jiouij ion
esides, maybe the citizens in the nation may petition for the removal of it because of its annoyance to them.
by Varola » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:42 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Why is that the government's problem?
What?
Does anyone besides elevator attendants spend enough time in lifts to warrent a petition?
by Candlewhisper Archive » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:51 am
Varola wrote:This never appeared in my reply to your first query, so I’m assuming that this is either from someone else or that you accidentally typed this in and thought it was from me.
by Kozmix » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:05 am
by Australian rePublic » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:09 am
Varola wrote:The existence of skyscrapers warrants your attention, my good man. Those who reside in these skyscrapers, especially those who live on the higher floors, will have to endure the long elevator flights up. In addition, most skyscrapers are usually built for commercial use, so if an office worker were to get out of the elevator into their workplace, their co-workers who work near the elevator would have to put up with listening to music everytime the elevator were to reach their level.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement