Islam

[WinterHold]

It's nice of you to mention the Guillotine, because the French revolution would never had succeeded without it. Without the terror the Guillotine put for the French corrupt royals -and their Christian bishops-  the success of the revolution would be no more.

So I gotta ask you; how is it legal and okay for western countries like France to use the Guillotine to clean the garbage in their communities, but we Muslims don't get that?

In other words we -Muslims- need our own French revolution, our own Guillotines to clean the garbage in our societies. You westerners would utilize the Guillotines soon enough too; I am sure. Especially when the right wing starts to roam more freely and commit more deadly crimes; you will miss capital punishment and will embed it again in your laws.

It's essential to cut a piece from corrupt criminals -like the French royals- because they are cutting our own bodies right now.

The Revolution would have succeeded with or without the guillotine - there are plenty of ways to kill people. 

Interestingly enough (and fatal to your very, very stupid argument), the guillotine was considered a more humane way to behead someone, as opposed to hacking at their neck with a sword or an axe.

Leaving aside for the moment the question of the morality of capital punishment, a legitimate comparison simply cannot be made between quickly and (mostly) painlessly executing a criminal and mutilating a criminal for life. The former has at least a nodding acquaintance with an enlightened society, while the latter is nothing more than primitive barbarism.

Boru

No, the guillotine was less "painful" for the arms of the executioner; it had nothing to do with the condemned. You see, the rebels had to cut "lots and lots of heads"; so using an axe or a sword would tire them.

But believe me, they didn't want their sentenced to rest under any fashion; there is a famous quote from that revolution that says:

https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot

• "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."-Denis Diderot
  

Humane my ass, Brian, get your head out of your imperialist-high horse's ass, would you?
Diderot is speaking about hanging royals with the entrails of priests, but you come wash it away by claiming the "guillotine" was a humane invention....I want to lol but I don't want to sound like a troll.

The guillotine was an instrument of terror that is light to the hand of executioners + costs way little than axes and swords.

---

It's nice of you to mention the Guillotine, because the French revolution would never had succeeded without it. Without the terror the Guillotine put for the French corrupt royals -and their Christian bishops-  the success of the revolution would be no more.

So I gotta ask you; how is it legal and okay for western countries like France to use the Guillotine to clean the garbage in their communities, but we Muslims don't get that?

In other words we -Muslims- need our own French revolution, our own Guillotines to clean the garbage in our societies. You westerners would utilize the Guillotines soon enough too; I am sure. Especially when the right wing starts to roam more freely and commit more deadly crimes; you will miss capital punishment and will embed it again in your laws.

It's essential to cut a piece from corrupt criminals -like the French royals- because they are cutting our own bodies right now.

? What ?

The French revolution did NOT succeed.

It's chaos is what allowed Napoleon to rise to power and END the Revolution "Of the people, by the people." OR, as it's become (And demonstratably so) known as "The reign of terror."

I'm not the one saying whether the use of an amputating machine is a 'Good' thing. YOU are. I'm just offering a different example from history of a practice that it is YOU who are espousing.

So, you're NOT answering my question of;

"WHO gets to operate the limb amputating machine?"

Since, obviously, it CAN'T be the police in your opinioin since they are ALREADY terrorizing people.

THEN you have the temerity to say:

"It was okay for the French to do it. Why can't I do it?"

What, from the bottom of my actual heart, the FEK?

Do you NOT read how fekkin' stupid and moronic that sounds?

So... lets go back and have you please answer that first question, okay?

WHO gets to amputate the hands of the theives in your system?

Cheers.

Not at work.

But the guillotine was used by France until the late 70s.
Remember that I'm a Muslim. The Quran I believe in is 1400 years old, and its says to kill the killer. So I don't take my orders from the "French" or the "English".

Anyways, who gets to "amputate" is the council that the whole Muslims agree for it rule them. Of course to do that you need election. But the Arab/Muslim dictators arrest us and torture us with the aid of the west if we ever say that.

That's why we -Muslims- have no country that carry out our sentences.

[Peebothuhlu]

But the guillotine was used by France until the late 70s.
Remember that I'm a Muslim. The Quran I believe in is 1400 years old, and its says to kill the killer. So I don't take my orders from the "French" or the "English".

Anyways, who gets to "amputate" is the council that the whole Muslims agree for it rule them. Of course to do that you need election. But the Arab/Muslim dictators arrest us and torture us with the aid of the west if we ever say that.

That's why we -Muslims- have no country that carry out our sentences.

Nice. Doesn't address my point that it was a FAILED group who instigated the practice. Along with the repeated "WAAAH! But they did it so I want to do it too!" Tantrum.

Trust me Mate. Forgetting your belief system is not going to be an easy thing to do given your replies in this thread alone.

It's nice that you believe your book is 1400 years old. Doesn't actually add eny creedence to it, though. So there's that.

Oh, nice. So you all get together, sing 'Koom-by-yaa' and elect 'Representatives' to do all the limb lopping. Great, good to know.  

Oh... but what's this? You have a group OF Muslims... Of whom you don't like the cut of their jib and now you're saying that them cutting off limbs is a bad thing?

Come on Mate, make up your mind.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[The Architect Of Fate]

But the guillotine was used by France until the late 70s.

Irrelevant  it isn't used anymore because it is barbaric . 40 or 100 makes no diffrence .

Remember that I'm a Muslim. The Quran I believe in is 1400 years old, and its says to kill the killer. So I don't take my orders from the "French" or the "English".

We don't care 

Anyways, who gets to "amputate" is the council that the whole Muslims agree for it rule them. Of course to do that you need election. But the Arab/Muslim dictators arrest us and torture us with the aid of the west if we ever say that.

Irrelevant we have moved on 

That's why we -Muslims- have no country that carry out our sentences.

We don't care

---

No, the guillotine was less "painful" for the arms of the executioner; it had nothing to do with the condemned. You see, the rebels had to cut "lots and lots of heads"; so using an axe or a sword would tire them.

But believe me, they didn't want their sentenced to rest under any fashion; there is a famous quote from that revolution that says:

It was introduced because it was considered less painful and more humane than axes or swords so your wong

---

Humane my ass, Brian, get your head out of your imperialist-high horse's ass, would you?

How about you get yours out of your 14th century barbarian ass 

Diderot is speaking about hanging royals with the entrails of priests, but you come wash it away by claiming the "guillotine" was a humane invention....I want to lol but I don't want to sound like a troll.

It was considered so and that quote does not challenge that fact 

The guillotine was an instrument of terror that is light to the hand of executioners + costs way little than axes and swords.

It was adopted because it was efficient and regarded as humane unlike a sword or an axe it was not originally intended as a instrument of terror

The machine was deemed successful because it was considered a humane form of execution in contrast with the more cruel methods used in the pre-revolutionary Ancien Régime. In France, before the invention of the guillotine, members of the nobility were beheaded with a sword or an axe, which often took two or more blows to kill the condemned. The condemned or their families would sometimes pay the executioner to ensure that the blade was sharp in order to achieve a quick and relatively painless death. Commoners were usually hanged, which could take many minutes. In the early phase of the French Revolution before the guillotine's adoption, the slogan À la lanterne (in English: To the lamp post! String Them Up! or Hang Them!) symbolized popular justice in revolutionary France. The revolutionary radicals hanged officials and aristocrats from street lanterns and also employed more gruesome methods of execution, such as the wheel or .

Sensing the growing discontent, Louis XVI banned the use of the breaking wheel.[10] In 1791, as the French Revolution progressed, the National Assembly researched a new method to be used on all condemned people regardless of class, consistent with the idea that the purpose of capital punishment was simply to end life rather than to inflict unnecessary pain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine..._in_France

The origins of the French guillotine date back to late-1789, when Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin proposed that the French government adopt a gentler method of execution. Although he was personally opposed to capital punishment, Guillotin argued that decapitation by a lightning-quick machine would be more humane and egalitarian than sword and axe beheadings, which were often botched. He later helped oversee the development of the first prototype, an imposing machine designed by French doctor Antoine Louis and built by a German harpsichord maker named Tobias Schmidt. The device claimed its first official victim in April 1792, and quickly became known as the “guillotine”—much to the horror of its supposed inventor. Guillotin tried to distance himself from the machine during the guillotine hysteria of the 1790s, and his family later unsuccessfully petitioned the French government to change its name in the early 19th century.

https://www.history.com/news/8-things-yo...guillotine

---

And the french revolution was a failure because terror isn't effective method of government

---

[/url]

[url=https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot]https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot

• "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."-Denis Diderot
  

Yeah but they stop at kings or priests they killed anybody with dissenting opinion .Then complete lawlessness . Then the takeover of an absolutist dictator worst then the people they got rid of. Not sure Denis intended that , And is yet more proof of why terror is a stupid way of running a country . 

[Deesse23]

Oh,wow, he managed to piss off peebo with his arbaric and insane ramblings. Haven't seen that one yet.😁

[The Grand Nudger]

Magic book tells him to kill killers and chop off hands. Come hell or high water, that's what he's going to do, lol.

[Peebothuhlu]

Oh,wow, he managed to piss off peebo with his arbaric and insane ramblings. Haven't seen that one yet.😁

 

It's not annoyance so much as frustration.

Once some one is happy with their ignorance. Digging them out of that hole just seems impossible.

Really, the discussion with WinterHold now seems at the level of them just sticking their fingers in their ears because we're shouting the valid point of "Humperdink! Humperdink! Humperdink! Humperdink!"

Cheers.

Not at work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But believe me, they didn't want their sentenced to rest under any fashion; there is a famous quote from that revolution that says:

https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot

• "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."-Denis Diderot
  

Diderot died five years BEFORE the start of the French Revolution, you ignorant wretch. He was a clever fellow, but not clever enough to comment on something that didn't happen until after his death.

If you're really looking for a Diderot quote that's more germane to this discussion, you'd have done better with, 'From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step'.
 
Boru

[Deesse23]

Oh,wow, he managed to piss off peebo with his arbaric and insane ramblings. Haven't seen that one yet.😁

 

It's not annoyance so much as frustration.

Once some one is happy with their ignorance. Digging them out of that hole just seems impossible.

Really, the discussion with WinterHold now seems at the level of them just sticking their fingers in their ears because we're shouting the valid point of "Humperdink! Humperdink! Humperdink! Humperdink!"

Cheers.

Not at work.

It has been long ago.

However over time, he himself reveals what drives him, the motivations and basic foundations. Watch the repeating themes, like hate (his frequent use of in-group and out-group terms), while claiming he loves people (just not the *bad ones*), like violence, while claiming he is a peaceful man (but of course not towards the *bad* ones). We have seen him multiple times now hiding like a coward behind his book, claiming that he will never kill. Nevertheless he ravels in violence, suffering of others and their death. I dont doubt he sincerely thinks its a decent thing to wish suffering and death upon major portions of the world population (literally!) but hey, his god is doing the actual killing, Atlass himself, well he is just sitting on the ranks. As if the gladiators in the arena were the only cruel and guilty people in the colosseum. He doesnt get that the people applauding and cheering are part of the problem too. He is one of those cowards who think they are perfectly innocent as long as they arent getting their hands dirty themselves.
He is basically a (wannabe) terrorist. He truly thinks terrorism is justified, and is an effective instrument to achieve his goals. Read his words in this very thread. The only thing he is missing, is to actually act on behalf of his (twisted) belief. He wants to terrorize people systematically (aka chopping hands off to keep them from stealing) he just thinks that should be done by someone else, since he is an oh-so-peaceful person. His get out of jail card ultmately being "but is all for a greater good". We know many people like him from history books. He is the worst kind of moral monster, one of those, once caught and demasekd would hide again....behind his book and the others who did the actual cruelty.

A coward, no more no less.

Its also telling that all this violence he is directing he doing so at others, never himself. He simply doesnt ever picture himself to be on the receiving end of his own cruelty. He never talks about himself being a thief (and we all have stolen something at some point in our life). Have you seen him ever say "sure, i have stolen, and i would have deserved to get my hand chopped off"? He is like a slave holder from the US south having no problem with slavery, because....he is no "goddamn fucking nigger".
He presupposes what he says and what he thinks his book is saying is correct, so why should he matter how "unjust" and people who are "wrong" are treated? He is none of them, by definition.

I am not saying he is a psychopath, those people have (afaik) a born deficiency that makes them unable to feel empathy, but he shows sociopathic traits, and sociopathy is trained, most probably by those who show him how to interpret his book *. Sociopaths do feel empathy, but they are able to ignore it to cast it aside.

He thinks of himself being a victim, all the time, and justifies his violence and hate by arguing that a victim has the right to fight back. Who are we to tell the poor victim to not fight back? Its on the core of his justification of violence: "But mommy, they started first!"

*no same human being reads a book, without being externally influenced, and concludes, "yeah, chopping hands off for a minor crime is ok". Nobody who was raised by halfway decent parents who taught him about empathy would do that. Maybe he was raised properly, idk, but probably at one point his anger about the current way the things are in the (his part of) world was growing unchecked. Maybe he has noone to check him, noone to talk sense into him, and that stupid book is poisonous. In that case the poison meets some very fertile ground.

In the end, whatever the reasons are, what the story behind was, i agree with (forgot the name now): He has turned into an uncivilized savage. The kind of person that needs to be checked, that we hope never will act on his beliefs, who never will have the power to create any part of the horror movie of a society he has in mind. Ironically he probably is used (by some) as a justification to keep treating the middle east exactly as it has been treated in the past. An irony that will never dawn upon him, since he is too much blinded and fascinated by the violence p0rn in his sick mind.

[WinterHold]

But believe me, they didn't want their sentenced to rest under any fashion; there is a famous quote from that revolution that says:

Diderot died five years BEFORE the start of the French Revolution, you ignorant wretch. He was a clever fellow, but not clever enough to comment on something that didn't happen until after his death.

If you're really looking for a Diderot quote that's more germane to this discussion, you'd have done better with, 'From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step'.
 
Boru

Very well, so he inspired the head chopping in the revolt with his writings.
Good thing that the French didn't go literally to the guts of their victims.
But I told peebo that I don't take orders from the French. Anyways; the revolution exposed how the west uses beheading when it needs to; then come cry the next day that it is barbaric.

And if its economical enough; they would go to the guts. Imagine if guts bring gold...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Diderot died five years BEFORE the start of the French Revolution, you ignorant wretch. He was a clever fellow, but not clever enough to comment on something that didn't happen until after his death.

If you're really looking for a Diderot quote that's more germane to this discussion, you'd have done better with, 'From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step'.
 
Boru

Very well, so he inspired the head chopping in the revolt with his writings.
Good thing that the French didn't go literally to the guts of their victims.
But I told peebo that I don't take orders from the French. Anyways; the revolution exposed how the west uses beheading when it needs to; then come cry the next day that it is barbaric.

And if its economical enough; they would go to the guts. Imagine if guts bring gold...

The French Revolution (and the associated head chopping) wasn't 'inspired' by Diderot. The Revolution would have proceeded apace if Diderot had never lived. If you would actually read Diderot, instead of a quote or two that fits your own barbarian goals, you'd have a better grasp as to what he was on about.

The French literally DID go to the guts of some criminals.  The guillotine changed all that.  Study up.

The West stopped beheading people because it IS barbaric.  Maybe one day the East will catch up.

Beheading has a long, LONG history, worldwide, before the Revolution took place.

You seem to be saying that it's barbarous for Western countries to execute people, but perfectly OK for other countries to do so. You may - just possibly - be an idiot.

Boru