The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Legalizing rape?

Legalizing rape?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. All
Hi Yuyutsu,

There must be some confusion here. Within a state, at least a democratic state, all citizens over 18 vote for their preferred candidates. Win or lose, they must submit to whoever wins in their particular seat, and whichever party has the most seats - the dominant party or coalition of parties forms the government to act in the interests of all citizens. That's the theory.

Non-members ? How can there be non-members of a democratic state ? How could such non-members hold land ? Do you mean foreign companies ? Foreign individuals ? They would still come under the legislation of the country, as administered by the government.

Does this clear up some of your objections ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 9:58:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Democracy, elections, parties, votes, the age of 18, candidates, seats, coalition, government and citizenship, are but some of the internal mechanisms by which a given group of people manages their internal affairs. They would usually have some written constitution which describes those mechanisms in detail.

However, these are only meaningful within the context of a particular group.

I am down to basics here: a state is nothing but a particular group of people. So long as those people are all there by choice, having freely agreed explicitly or implicitly on their constitution, then I have no problem with how they choose to manage their internal affairs. If they want a democracy then so be it and if they prefer something else like monarchy, aristocracy, the rule of their ten eldest or whatever, then I am happy with it too.

However, it is not right for any group of people to forcibly assume that non-consenting others belong to their group, for any reason including for the reason that they happen to live on some nearby land or own it. Also, no group has a right to enforce their specific internal procedures on others who never agreed to belong to their group.

How can there be non-members of a democratic state?
-Why, there are over a hundred democratic states of which you and I are not members.

How could such non-members hold land?
-If members can hold land, then why not non-members? What's the difference?
In my last post I discussed natural ownership. Those natural owners who wish to form a state could in a way donate some or all of their land to that state, which could include some or all of their natural rights over that land, thus allowing their state to form a "country" whereby internal rules of land-ownership apply in place of the natural ones.
If someone hasn't willingly donated their natural land to a state, then their land does not belong to that state's country.

(continued...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 11:57:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(...continued)

Do you mean foreign companies?
-Companies are one other internal mechanism that states may employ (if they choose).
"foreign companies" only exist due to international agreements between states which agree to recognise some of each other's internal structures. It is thus meaningless to speak of them outside the context of a state and of their representatives other than as "people".

Foreign individuals?
-"Foreign" is another internal construct within states, most commonly denoting members of other states.
Anyone who is not a member of a state is "foreign" from that state's perspective. Not only humans, but even animals are "foreign" from that perspective because no state I know considers them members, nor has any animal that I know ever consented to belong to a human state.
However, outside the context of a state it is meaningless to speak of anyone as "foreign". I am just who I am, you are just who you are.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 9 February 2016 11:57:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
H Yuyutsu,

Nice try. "How can there be non-members of a democratic state?
-Why, there are over a hundred democratic states of which you and I are not members."

I have enough respect for your intelligence to believe that you can understand the difference between a 'non-member' of one country - whatever that may mean - and not being members of any particular country.

If you mean that, say, a non-citizen may purchase land in, say, Australia, then of course - provided the purchase is approved by the relevant administrative bodies - that land still is part of Australia, and comes under its legislation, at federal, state and municipal levels, just like any other land, and the State has resp0nsibility over it to decide how it is to be used.

What on earth do you mean by 'natural ownership' ? If anything, the State has that 'natural ownership', underlying title, the approved uses to which it exercises on behalf of the population of Australia. You purchase the right to use land for certain purposes as defined by the State ( i.e. federal, state and municipal authorities) - you do not ever purchase any land absolutely.

There is no such thing as 'natural ownership'. You purchase the right to use and no more. You can buy and sell that 'right to use', but you can't do anything you like with what is essentially, at its base, not yours.

I hope that clarifies the situation for you :)

Now, perhaps we can get back to the topic. Are you trying to suggest that, if one has absolute title to land, one can commit rape on it with impunity ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 10 February 2016 7:42:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: while I only claim that ruling over others WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT is wrong.

Aaha! So that's why moslems don't recognize Australian Law in Australia. The simple solution would be to remove those people to a place whose Laws they do recognize.

Yutsie: Advise: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 10 February 2016 8:15:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jayb,

Surely Yuyutsu is not proposing that, if anybody such as Muslims, don't vote for, or approve of the right of governments to legislate on their behalf as it does for all Australians, they don't have to conform to its laws ?

Or that government can't restrict the uses of land for Muslims like it has the right to do for all Australians, that Muslims have some sort of special rights, just because they purchase land, and that if they have purchased land, they can rape any girl or woman they like on it ?

As I understand it, under Shari'a law, all land in the world belongs to Allah, not to any government, and certainly not to any non-Muslim. So, as Muslims, if they purchase land, especially if they purchase it from non-Muslims, they are simply bringing that land back under the control of Allah, and as long as they abide by Shari'a law, Allah's law as they see it, they can do anything they like on it.

So since forced intercourse is permitted under Shari'a, i.e. with one's wife, or slave, or any young girl as soon as she develops pubes and, under Shari'a law, can get married, then they can do that on any land they may have purchased, in Allah's name, of course. As well, of course, such women can be beaten until they submit ( = Islam) to forced intercourse, in the name of Allah, the compassionate and merciful, as long as the bruises don't show.

Surely that's not what you are suggesting ? Surely, just because this bloke advocating rape on one's land, he is not advocating it just because he is Muslim ? I can scarcely believe it: people couldn't possibly be that backward, not in 2016 ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 10 February 2016 9:01:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy