'Couple detained in UAE for sex outside marriage'

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

'Couple detained in UAE for sex outside marriage'

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 6 of 8 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Michaelawt85 Bexley 10 Mar 17 10.16am
Couldn't she simply say the child was conceived outside of the country whilst on holiday elsewhere. Therefore they haven't had sex outside of marriage in the uae. Just an idea When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC
Alert a moderator to this post

Michaelawt85

Bexley 10 Mar 17 10.16am

Couldn't she simply say the child was conceived outside of the country whilst on holiday elsewhere. Therefore they haven't had sex outside of marriage in the uae. Just an idea

When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 17 10.25am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Putin's Russia is far from perfect, but common sense tells us that it is far preferable to the communist charnel house that was there before. Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 5.25pm) Really, I think they only real difference is that the cold war is over. Preferable, maybe, but that's not really enough is it. Capitalism, its slightly better than the Soviet Communism. The difference maybe is that we effectively condone a lot of the Russian States behaviour, where as we opposed that of the Soviet Regime. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 10 Mar 17 10.25am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Putin's Russia is far from perfect, but common sense tells us that it is far preferable to the communist charnel house that was there before.

Edited by hedgehog50 (09 Mar 2017 5.25pm)

Really, I think they only real difference is that the cold war is over. Preferable, maybe, but that's not really enough is it. Capitalism, its slightly better than the Soviet Communism. The difference maybe is that we effectively condone a lot of the Russian States behaviour, where as we opposed that of the Soviet Regime.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 17 10.30am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Well it certainly highlights the futility of making decisions based on morality or ethics and expecting that it will bring about a series of events that will be 'better'. One is reminded of Blackadder's Christmas Carol. I don't think 'trying to make decisions based on morality or ethics' will necessary make things better, but judging them based on them will. People who make moral decisions for others, usually end up creating bigger problems instead. Just because you believe something to be moral or ethical, doesn't mean it is. Blair thinks he was moral and ethical with Iraq, but notice how he isn't so certain as to test that in direct argument - because its unfounded. Its not enough that your decisions are less immoral or unethical. They're still immoral and unethical. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 10 Mar 17 10.30am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Well it certainly highlights the futility of making decisions based on morality or ethics and expecting that it will bring about a series of events that will be 'better'.

One is reminded of Blackadder's Christmas Carol.

I don't think 'trying to make decisions based on morality or ethics' will necessary make things better, but judging them based on them will.

People who make moral decisions for others, usually end up creating bigger problems instead. Just because you believe something to be moral or ethical, doesn't mean it is.

Blair thinks he was moral and ethical with Iraq, but notice how he isn't so certain as to test that in direct argument - because its unfounded. Its not enough that your decisions are less immoral or unethical. They're still immoral and unethical.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 10 Mar 17 11.28am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Really. I think they only real difference is that the cold war is over. Preferable, maybe, but that's not really enough is it. Capitalism, its slightly better than the Soviet Communism. The difference maybe is that we effectively condone a lot of the Russian States behaviour, where as we opposed that of the Soviet Regime. “Capitalism is slightly better than the Soviet Communism”. Really? Here are the opening lines from Martin Amis’s book , ‘Koba the Dread’ – I think what he says exposes the absurdity of your statement better than I can: “Here is the second sentence of Robert Conquest’s ‘The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine’: We may perhaps put this in perspective in the present case by saying that in the actions here recorded about twenty human lives were lost for, not every word, but every letter, in this book.” That sentence represents 3,040 lives. The book is 411 pages long. This is just famine of course - add to that the mountains of corpses from the various purges of 'enemies of the people'. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 10 Mar 17 11.28am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Really. I think they only real difference is that the cold war is over. Preferable, maybe, but that's not really enough is it. Capitalism, its slightly better than the Soviet Communism. The difference maybe is that we effectively condone a lot of the Russian States behaviour, where as we opposed that of the Soviet Regime.

“Capitalism is slightly better than the Soviet Communism”.
Really? Here are the opening lines from Martin Amis’s book , ‘Koba the Dread’ – I think what he says exposes the absurdity of your statement better than I can:
“Here is the second sentence of Robert Conquest’s ‘The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine’: We may perhaps put this in perspective in the present case by saying that in the actions here recorded about twenty human lives were lost for, not every word, but every letter, in this book.”
That sentence represents 3,040 lives. The book is 411 pages long.

This is just famine of course - add to that the mountains of corpses from the various purges of 'enemies of the people'.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 10 Mar 17 11.46am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I don't think 'trying to make decisions based on morality or ethics' will necessary make things better, but judging them based on them will. People who make moral decisions for others, usually end up creating bigger problems instead. Just because you believe something to be moral or ethical, doesn't mean it is. Blair thinks he was moral and ethical with Iraq, but notice how he isn't so certain as to test that in direct argument - because its unfounded. Its not enough that your decisions are less immoral or unethical. They're still immoral and unethical. The problem with ethics is that they are defined by people and people have bias. The less people involved the less reliable. Blair convinced himself he was doing the right thing. Most disagree. But in future his choice might have an unexpectedly positive outcome. He might have been party to a bigger picture that most are unaware of. What I'm suggesting is that morality and ethics are a human indulgence which we consider worthy but in truth exist in a much harsher reality where the complexity of human behavior and apparently random events render any attempt to control the future almost useless. Even if we believe we can positively influence the future with ethical decisions, at which point do we pick in the future to evaluate the success of our decisions? There is a certain futility in all this since our futures either as individuals or as a species has a predictable end. Non existence. Because of that, the best we can do is make decisions that produce a positive short term advantage or set of circumstances. Again that comes down to a judgment call. In that light, ethics appear to be little more than an attempt to make our lives a little more pleasant and protect us from life's harsh realities in the short term but do not necessarily produce an outcome that benefits humanity in any other sense in the bigger picture.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

10 Mar 17 11.46am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I don't think 'trying to make decisions based on morality or ethics' will necessary make things better, but judging them based on them will.

People who make moral decisions for others, usually end up creating bigger problems instead. Just because you believe something to be moral or ethical, doesn't mean it is.

The problem with ethics is that they are defined by people and people have bias. The less people involved the less reliable.
Blair convinced himself he was doing the right thing. Most disagree. But in future his choice might have an unexpectedly positive outcome. He might have been party to a bigger picture that most are unaware of.
What I'm suggesting is that morality and ethics are a human indulgence which we consider worthy but in truth exist in a much harsher reality where the complexity of human behavior and apparently random events render any attempt to control the future almost useless. Even if we believe we can positively influence the future with ethical decisions, at which point do we pick in the future to evaluate the success of our decisions? There is a certain futility in all this since our futures either as individuals or as a species has a predictable end. Non existence. Because of that, the best we can do is make decisions that produce a positive short term advantage or set of circumstances. Again that comes down to a judgment call.
In that light, ethics appear to be little more than an attempt to make our lives a little more pleasant and protect us from life's harsh realities in the short term but do not necessarily produce an outcome that benefits humanity in any other sense in the bigger picture.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 10 Mar 17 11.48am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 “Capitalism is slightly better than the Soviet Communism”. Really? Here are the opening lines from Martin Amis’s book , ‘Koba the Dread’ – I think what he says exposes the absurdity of your statement better than I can: “Here is the second sentence of Robert Conquest’s ‘The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine’: We may perhaps put this in perspective in the present case by saying that in the actions here recorded about twenty human lives were lost for, not every word, but every letter, in this book.” That sentence represents 3,040 lives. The book is 411 pages long. This is just famine of course - add to that the mountains of corpses from the various purges of 'enemies of the people'. You are,of course, right that Putin's Russia bears no comparison to Stalin's Gulag years.Stalin was a monster. But it's not necessarily so simple as a Putin equals Capitalism and is better than Stalin,who was a communist,matter.. All ideologies have had their fair share of monsters...Stalin,Mao,Franco, Hitler ,Pavelic,and Pinochet. Is Putin's Russia better than Gorbachev's Soviet Union...a much closer call,particularly given the benefits of capitalism nowadays have to be balanced against the authoritarian (after all,Putin and his cronies were KGB) gangster authoritarian b******ised state capitalism of Putin et al. Edited by legaleagle (10 Mar 2017 11.49am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

10 Mar 17 11.48am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

This is just famine of course - add to that the mountains of corpses from the various purges of 'enemies of the people'.

You are,of course, right that Putin's Russia bears no comparison to Stalin's Gulag years.Stalin was a monster.

But it's not necessarily so simple as a Putin equals Capitalism and is better than Stalin,who was a communist,matter..

All ideologies have had their fair share of monsters...Stalin,Mao,Franco, Hitler ,Pavelic,and Pinochet.

Is Putin's Russia better than Gorbachev's Soviet Union...a much closer call,particularly given the benefits of capitalism nowadays have to be balanced against the authoritarian (after all,Putin and his cronies were KGB) gangster authoritarian b******ised state capitalism of Putin et al.

Edited by legaleagle (10 Mar 2017 11.49am)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 10 Mar 17 12.05pm
Originally posted by legaleagle You are,of course, right that Putin's Russia bears no comparison to Stalin's Gulag years.Stalin was a monster. But it's not necessarily so simple as a Putin equals Capitalism and is better than Stalin,who was a communist,matter.. All ideologies have had their fair share of monsters...Stalin,Mao,Franco, Hitler ,Pavelic,and Pinochet. Is Putin's Russia better than Gorbachev's Soviet Union...a much closer call,particularly given the benefits of capitalism nowadays have to be balanced against the authoritarian (after all,Putin and his cronies were KGB) gangster authoritarian b******ised state capitalism of Putin et al. Edited by legaleagle (10 Mar 2017 11.49am) Yes. Gorbachev was in charge for only about 18 months and presided over the welcome collapse of the clapped out, failed, communist system. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 10 Mar 17 12.05pm

Originally posted by legaleagle

You are,of course, right that Putin's Russia bears no comparison to Stalin's Gulag years.Stalin was a monster.

But it's not necessarily so simple as a Putin equals Capitalism and is better than Stalin,who was a communist,matter..

All ideologies have had their fair share of monsters...Stalin,Mao,Franco, Hitler ,Pavelic,and Pinochet.

Is Putin's Russia better than Gorbachev's Soviet Union...a much closer call,particularly given the benefits of capitalism nowadays have to be balanced against the authoritarian (after all,Putin and his cronies were KGB) gangster authoritarian b******ised state capitalism of Putin et al.

Edited by legaleagle (10 Mar 2017 11.49am)

Yes. Gorbachev was in charge for only about 18 months and presided over the welcome collapse of the clapped out, failed, communist system.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James 10 Mar 17 12.43pm
Originally posted by Michaelawt85 Couldn't she simply say the child was conceived outside of the country whilst on holiday elsewhere. Therefore they haven't had sex outside of marriage in the uae. Just an idea I would've claimed I caught it off a toilet seat.
Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James

10 Mar 17 12.43pm

Send a Private Message to Part Time James

Originally posted by Michaelawt85

Couldn't she simply say the child was conceived outside of the country whilst on holiday elsewhere. Therefore they haven't had sex outside of marriage in the uae. Just an idea

I would've claimed I caught it off a toilet seat.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 17 1.14pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 “Capitalism is slightly better than the Soviet Communism”. Really? Here are the opening lines from Martin Amis’s book , ‘Koba the Dread’ – I think what he says exposes the absurdity of your statement better than I can: “Here is the second sentence of Robert Conquest’s ‘The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine’: We may perhaps put this in perspective in the present case by saying that in the actions here recorded about twenty human lives were lost for, not every word, but every letter, in this book.” That sentence represents 3,040 lives. The book is 411 pages long. This is just famine of course - add to that the mountains of corpses from the various purges of 'enemies of the people'. Yes, but its the jump from oppressive-murder regime to oppressive-murder regime which we do a lot of business with. I don't see a real difference between Russian Democracy with Putin and the Politburo of old. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 10 Mar 17 1.14pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

This is just famine of course - add to that the mountains of corpses from the various purges of 'enemies of the people'.

Yes, but its the jump from oppressive-murder regime to oppressive-murder regime which we do a lot of business with. I don't see a real difference between Russian Democracy with Putin and the Politburo of old.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 17 1.16pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Yes. Gorbachev was in charge for only about 18 months and presided over the welcome collapse of the clapped out, failed, communist system. I think I preferred the Soviet Union and a clapped out failing state, than the economic power Gangster State its become. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 10 Mar 17 1.16pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Yes. Gorbachev was in charge for only about 18 months and presided over the welcome collapse of the clapped out, failed, communist system.

I think I preferred the Soviet Union and a clapped out failing state, than the economic power Gangster State its become.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 10 Mar 17 1.23pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Yes, but its the jump from oppressive-murder regime to oppressive-murder regime which we do a lot of business with. I don't see a real difference between Russian Democracy with Putin and the Politburo of old. It is simply ludicrous to liken the capability for murder of communist Russia with the current regime. Is it some sort of anarchist philosophical view? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 10 Mar 17 1.23pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

It is simply ludicrous to liken the capability for murder of communist Russia with the current regime. Is it some sort of anarchist philosophical view?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 10 Mar 17 1.25pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think I preferred the Soviet Union and a clapped out failing state, than the economic power Gangster State its become. What even if you were in a gulag, or a cellar in the Lubyanka, or forced to eat your dead children to avoid starvation? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 10 Mar 17 1.25pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think I preferred the Soviet Union and a clapped out failing state, than the economic power Gangster State its become.

What even if you were in a gulag, or a cellar in the Lubyanka, or forced to eat your dead children to avoid starvation?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 6 of 8 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

'Couple detained in UAE for sex outside marriage'

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors