From: othman@ntrc25.ntrc.ntu.ac.sg (othman (EEE/Div 4))
Subject: Re: Question about rape
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:36:54 GMT

Shahrokh Mortazavi (smortaz@handel.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan12.040648.28361@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> othman@ntrc25.ntrc.ntu.ac.sg (othman (EEE/Div 4)) writes:
: 
: >
: >: grass is abundantly available (unlike the grazing type); adultery - well,
: >: lets not even talk about that as long polygamy and temporary marriage
: >: are blessed and legal.
: >
: >So you think all marriages are a form of adultery. 
: 
: your inference engine is misfiring.  how did you deduce that i think
: all marriages are a form of adultery???

Let me teach you what you imply.

adultery is to have sex with another woman without prior marriage arrangement.

Unless you want to redefine is as having sex with another woman, which will
imply that someone who divorces and then marry another woman also commits
adultery, typical CAtholic thinking(or does it still stand).

Or you can redefine it to mean having sex with another woman almost at the same
time with another woman, but is it possible? Surely there is a time interval
between each act. Who are you to determine whether the delay be the time after
divorce(which can be minutes depending on how efficient the divorce proceding
is), or the time to shift to another partner in a polygamy/temporary marriage?


Marriage is an agreement between concenting adults to have sex in the presence
of witnesses.

Adultery is an agreement between concenting adults to have sex. 
The major difference is the secrecy levels. You may say that a adultorous
adults can also be doing it in public, but if that were the case why don't
they just get married? Or was it due to the burden of divorce /restriction of
polygamy?
: 
: >: besides, the laws are terribly inexact and inconsistent.  why 80
: >: whips?  why not 123?  wouldnt that be more effective?  using what sort
: >
: >Why should it be 80? Why should it be 0? 
: >Why are you sometime jailed for 1 month and sometimes 0 day? Why should there
: >be any jail at all?					      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: contrary to what you think im saying, i believe criminals should be
: punished to the fullest extent of the law.  my point is simply that
: cutting off a theif's hand isnt necessarily the best way to go about
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have not proven it otherwise but it is well proven that this punishment
is very effective in actual implementations, as a deterrent.

: punishing him or her.  if a carpenter loses his good judgement and
What makes you be so damn sure that he will not lose it again? It is well
proven that in almost 100% cases he will surely lose it again. These are
reality.
: steals, i much rather have him sent to a jail where his skills can be
: used to, for example, help build beds or small shelters for the homeless.

So you support the idea of slave labour but you still have to feed him. How
can you be sure that his productivity in captivity exceeds the costs of 
maintaing him. It is known that their productivity in jain do not cover the
cost of jailing him.

: cutting off his hand and taking away his livelihood is foolish
The amount lost due to thefts far exceeds the loss of earning  thief carpenter,
 but then are there many thief carpenters.

: and doesnt accomplish anything useful.
Are you saying that deterring more thefts is not useful? So you are condoning
that your house be robbed, you be mugged, just to support your stupid idealism.

You would rather spend your tax on supporting these thieves and potential 
theives so that you can get robbed/mugged again.

: 
: >
: >: of a whip?  with what force?  hell, if you consider cutting off a theif's _hand_ 
: >
: >Is there any whip that is exactly similar? A whip is a whip. 
: 					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: a whip is a whip?  great, then if i ever commit adultery please
: use Miracle Whip on me.  yum.
: 
: >: why isnt there a law to poke out the eye of a peeping tom?  hey, its
: >: effective!  isnt that your argument???
: >
: >How important is it to stop peeping tom? Will peeping tom destroy lives?
: 					  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: using your line of logic:  wouldnt it 'destroy your life' if you found out
: every night after you fell asleep your wife picked up the binoculars and
: watched the college boy in the apt across from yours lift weights?

No because we can just ask for a divorce amicably or just tolerate it. Thinking
about adultery is bad but is never the same as doing it, provided your logic
says otherwise, and that says  a lot about your logic.

: 
: >: if you can be proud of a society people whos people dont steal simply because 
: >: theyre afraid of losing their hands, then we probably think too differently
: >: to hold a fruitful discussion.
: >
: >If you are waiting for everyone who will never steal , I do not want to live
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: im not.  there will always be criminals.  the objective is to reduce
: their number.  i simply dont consider dismembering people the wisest 
: approach.
: 
jailing, brain-washing, fining have not been effective; but dismembering surely
is effective.

CAn you think of an ALTERNAIVE that actually works?
Don't give me your rhetoric.


--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet