Questions for Mandy

[FBM]

I was completely serious, as always.

Oh, I sure you were. You wouldn't resort to sarcasm, evaar!

[Bella Fortuna]

I was completely serious, as always.

Oh, I sure you were. You wouldn't resort to sarcasm, evaar!

Hope you had a nice day! Goodnight.

[FBM]

I was completely serious, as always.

Oh, I sure you were. You wouldn't resort to sarcasm, evaar!

Hope you had a nice day! Goodnight.

Yeah, right. I'm not going to wank it thinking about you before I turn in.

[Bella Fortuna]

I wouldn't be flattered by that.

[Tigger]

Can you please arrange to have a fatwa imposed on one [NAME REMOVED BY STAFF].

Thankyouverymuch.

It's the second time in a few days that someone's real name has appeared online without their permission. It's a close-knit community, and it's a shame to spoil it by not being able to differentiate between the interpersonal relationships that we have here, and an individual's right to privacy and security.

Well I apologise as I broke the rule, however it was in response to the person concerned actually pretending to be someone else and using a sock puppet after all. Some justification I feel.

The lecture however I can manage without.

Your response, however, was ill-judged and wrong. It was not a sock puppet, and the person didn't say that they were a puppeteer, you assumed it. Regardless of what you thought, or who you thought it was, you do not under any circumstances have the right to publish private information. No justification I feel, and a reminder of the reasons seemed apposite.

[Rum]

Your response, however, was ill-judged and wrong. It was not a sock puppet, and the person didn't say that they were a puppeteer, you assumed it. Regardless of what you thought, or who you thought it was, you do not under any circumstances have the right to publish private information. No justification I feel, and a reminder of the reasons seemed apposite.

I plead provocation!

And let that be an end to it!

[Tigger]

Your response, however, was ill-judged and wrong. It was not a sock puppet, and the person didn't say that they were a puppeteer, you assumed it. Regardless of what you thought, or who you thought it was, you do not under any circumstances have the right to publish private information. No justification I feel, and a reminder of the reasons seemed apposite.

I plead provocation!

And let that be an end to it!

Yeah, you got me there. I know provocation.

[mandy]

hackenslash:

I have a question. Sorry if it's already come up, but I haven't read the whole thread.

Mandelson, do you think that stoning rape victims to death is a moral act?

coz atheists dont know what morality is or where is comes from, so i cant answer it for you.
but to you, i will say this according to your own made up moral values....

why not. if legitimate authority like senate passes the death law in america, then that law is the law. tough luck. therefore, if frying the brain of a person is in, then why is stoning out?
double standards are bollocks. only hypos have em.

[beige]

hackenslash:

I have a question. Sorry if it's already come up, but I haven't read the whole thread.

Mandelson, do you think that stoning rape victims to death is a moral act?

why not. if legitimate authority like senate passes the death law in america, then that law is the law. tough luck. therefore, if frying the brain of a person is in, then why is stoning out?
double standards are bollocks. only hypos have em.

There's a bit of a difference between punishing the victim and the offender.

[Coito ergo sum]

hackenslash:

I have a question. Sorry if it's already come up, but I haven't read the whole thread.

Mandelson, do you think that stoning rape victims to death is a moral act?

why not. if legitimate authority like senate passes the death law in america, then that law is the law. tough luck. therefore, if frying the brain of a person is in, then why is stoning out?
double standards are bollocks. only hypos have em.

We don't fry the brains of rape victims in the West, nor do we stone them. So, there is no hypocrisy.

[orpheus]

hackenslash:

I have a question. Sorry if it's already come up, but I haven't read the whole thread.

Mandelson, do you think that stoning rape victims to death is a moral act?

why not. if legitimate authority like senate passes the death law in america, then that law is the law. tough luck. therefore, if frying the brain of a person is in, then why is stoning out?
double standards are bollocks. only hypos have em.

The question isn't what is the law. The question is do you think stoning rape victims to death is a moral act?

Although your answer above prompts me to ask another question: do you decide what you think is moral based on what a "legitimate authority" legislates?

[mandy]

Law is the law but morals comes from Allah.

[Thinking Aloud]

hackenslash:

I have a question. Sorry if it's already come up, but I haven't read the whole thread.

Mandelson, do you think that stoning rape victims to death is a moral act?

coz atheists dont know what morality is or where is comes from, so i cant answer it for you.
but to you, i will say this according to your own made up moral values....

why not. if legitimate authority like senate passes the death law in america, then that law is the law. tough luck. therefore, if frying the brain of a person is in, then why is stoning out?
double standards are bollocks. only hypos have em.

Do you have any pets?

[Azathoth]

later



poor piggie should have worn a condom when he fucked that dirty paedophile

[orpheus]

Law is the law but morals comes from Allah.

That's not what you indicated above. When asked whether or not you think it's moral, you cited the law of a "legitimate authority like senate".

By the way, that still doesn't answer the question. The question is: do you think stoning rape victims to death is a moral act?