Quote:
Originally Posted by SydneyK
You're right. They have a stupid law. And the repercussions of breaking that stupid law, especially to the extent that the girl in this case is, is immoral.
Let's say there was a law here that said "Men can't wear blue on Tuesdays." Now let's say that you decided to wear blue tomorrow, and have the unfortunate luck to be mugged by lots of big dudes with knives. The muggers rip you to pieces. You barely live; you're embarrassed that you couldn't defend yourself; your sister tries to kill you because you're a disgrace to the family.
You're sentenced to 6 months in jail and 200 lashes; the muggers are sentenced to two years in jail.
By your logic, it's all your fault because you wore blue. If you hadn't been wearing blue, the muggers wouldn't have mugged you. So the penalty is ok. Right?
|
Another one trying to put words in my mouth...again the RAPE was an unfortunate by product.
Still the question REMAINS...WHAT was she doing out unescorted for a picture?
How incriminating was this picture that she risked getting punished?
To me, it's common sense..something had to be going on that caused her to risk life and limb that she didn't want anyone knowing about.
And a lot of you are acting like well, she was raped, isn't that punishment enough?
YES, IT IS.
But again, there are other courses of action she could have taken that may have prevented that and like I said from my last example, EVEN IF SHE DID and was still raped, then the crime she committed would be OFF THE TABLE, WHICH is what she is being punished for!
P.S. Nittanyalum, I will tell you the same thing that I have told others...I refuse to go back and do a spell check for each and every little post I type just to please yoiu all, if you can understand what I am conveying, that is all you will ever need.
Threaded Mode
