But it _was_ a totally innocent mistake, wasn't it?

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:47, archived)

That's not his point
It's wrong to flog anyone for naming a teddybear anything, regardless of whether or not it was meant offensively.
( The Baroness The Harlot Pimpernel, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:48, archived)

Yeah', the west banned flogging years and years ago, for a good reason.
And although I totaly agree, I suppose I could play Devil's Advocate and ask who are we to impose rules onto other people's land?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:50, archived)

We're the British, it's in our blood to bully impoverished foreigners

( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:53, archived)

Who is talking about 'imposing' rules?
Condemning something because it is quite fucking unequivocally morally abhorent is entirely within the realms of reasonable behaviour.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:55, archived)

Yes, but ultimatly, would do fuck all to help.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:57, archived)

Why?
International condemnation is a perfectly valid way to get things changed. Ghandi didn't invade India in tanks.

(there should probably be an inverse-godwin law for mentioning ghandi in a discussion like this)
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:59, archived)

NAZI

( spangolin - the odds are good but the goods are odd, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:02, archived)

Would you automatically win the argument?

( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:03, archived)

That can't be right, can it?
I need to give this more thought. I'll just be in my room spinning some yarn.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:04, archived)

What would Ghandi do?

(PsychoChomp, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:05, archived)

weave socks out of yoghurt.

( Sir Sand GOBLIN ^popular page dis, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:08, archived)

Who are the theocrats to impose laws on 'their' land?
People don't have more right to torture people on 'their' land than anywhere else.
( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:56, archived)

Yes.
But that's not the point. The point is that she's a human being and should be allowed to name a teddy-bear without getting the lash.
( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:48, archived)

Ahhh, I see, sorry....
I thought you were having a go at the way the news report said that it was an innocent mistake.

I totaly agree, this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed to happen, not in this century.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:53, archived)

I AM having a go at the way the news report, and all the commentary I've seen about it, says it's an innocent mistake, as though that matters.
It begs the question of whether it's all right to flog someone for insulting Islam.
( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:57, archived)

Hee hee.
Lovely proper use of 'begs the question' there. Ten points.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:00, archived)

Thanks. I hoped someone would notice.

( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:00, archived)