Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Pretty sure the stoning of those who engage in sodomy is already a crime...

    I agree with the rest of your post.
    I meant in the UK.

    My point is that queen-bee implied a blanket agreement with the enforcement of all laws, regardless of their content. Some laws may abrogate (what we deem) our fundamental rights, and thus to justify the inherently unjust application of such rules is, I would argue, an undesirable position to take. But I think you already understand and agree with all of this, so my apologies if I come across as condescending in any way!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I wouldn't advocate risking doing it in practice, I'm just making a moral argument.


    Oh I entirely agree, I am opposed to the monarchy, house of Lords and first past the post. It has some more legitimacy because it's not completely undemocratic, but on the whole I believe everyone should live and let live and that attempts to control other people's personal decisions are immoral, not resistance to such control.
    I did say live and let live to another user but this is Saudia Arabia we are talking about and Muslims consider it somewhat holy due to city of Mecca where hajj is performed and the kabbah is there etc. So unfortunately doesn't look like the laws are changing anytime soon,so in the meantime just don't do anything silly rather go somewhere else and do whatever you wish(in another country)to avoid being harmed or even killed
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    I meant in the UK.

    My point is that queen-bee implied a blanket agreement with the enforcement of all laws, regardless of their content. Some laws may abrogate (what we deem) our fundamental rights, and thus to justify the inherently unjust application of such rules is, I would argue, an undesirable position to take. But I think you already understand and agree with all of this, so my apologies if I come across as condescending in any way!
    Then what should determine what is and is not passed into law?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Maybe they've changed the laws since then. Tbh Ajman and Sharjah are boring anyway,I only went because of the beaches. Way better than Dubai. Most families live there. The young,single people live in Dubai. There are hardly any Arabs that live in Dubai. And the women only leave the house with a mahram and wear nikhab from what I've seen but in Ajman/Sharjah people aren't so strict
    Pretty much. People only go for the beaches. But i think it's becoming even more touristy (busier). It was ok for what it was.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Triple-Sod)
    Think I saw that on an episode of 'Banged up Abroad', Scottish guy right?

    This reminds me of when low class British chavs think they can make a pathetic few grand smuggling drugs in and out of South East Asian countries and end up facing the firing squad, I have zero sympathy for them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    I meant in the UK.

    My point is that queen-bee implied a blanket agreement with the enforcement of all laws, regardless of their content. Some laws may abrogate (what we deem) our fundamental rights, and thus to justify the inherently unjust application of such rules is, I would argue, an undesirable position to take. But I think you already understand and agree with all of this, so my apologies if I come across as condescending in any way!
    I didn't imply anything as such. I just said it was a silly move on the guy's part. I'm sorry but personally I would never risk my life in places like Saudia Arabia by carrying alcohol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    Then what should determine what is and is not passed into law?
    That is not a question I can answer in my lunch break right now. But for my point to be valid all you need to concede is the possibility of a theoretical law being so fundamentally and shockingly egregious that we cannot deem it valid; and thus queen-bee's blanket acceptance of the enforcement of any legislation begins to crumble.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    Then what should determine what is and is not passed into law?
    Elections, ideally.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    This country makes cannabis illegal and gives people life-ruining criminal records for possession of small amounts for personal use, it's stupid, unfair, immoral and probably doesn't even have backing of the public, but I would still say you're an idiot for blazing up in front of a police officer.
    I agree with you - you would be an idiot perhaps, but it's not morally wrong to do so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    That is not a question I can answer in my lunch break right now. But for my point to be valid all you need to concede is the possibility of a theoretical law being so fundamentally and shockingly egregious that we cannot deem it valid; and thus queen-bee's blanket acceptance of the enforcement of any legislation begins to crumble.
    I believe that every law in existence may not be valid, this does nothing to answer the question as to which these laws are.


    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Elections, ideally.

    We have a majority government which only got a minority of the votes, doesn't seem very fair or democratic. As a more fundamental point, why should elections be what determines which laws are passed?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    This reminds me of when low class British chavs think they can make a pathetic few grand smuggling drugs in and out of South East Asian countries and end up facing the firing squad, I have zero sympathy for them.
    Well to be fair at least in their case I can see the temptation but with this guy he even said he was already making three times his wages as a chef back home, certainly didn't need the cash, seems to have been getting off more on the status and reputation it got him at the ex-pat compounds...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Triple-Sod)
    Well to be fair at least in their case I can see the temptation but with this guy he even said he was already making three times his wages as a chef back home, certainly didn't need the cash, seems to have been getting off more on the status and reputation it got him at the ex-pat compounds...
    Exactly

    Pure stupidity.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think we should just stop dealing with these Saudi sand monkeys altogether.
    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

    Enjoy John.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    We have a majority government which only got a minority of the votes, doesn't seem very fair or democratic.
    Which is unfair, yes. But undemocratic? No. The first past the post system is doing what it was designed to do -- represent constituencies and not individual voters. While I agree that it needs to be replaced, I don't see how it's comparable to the absolute monarchy they have in Saudi Arabia and, more importantly, even if it was, comparable, that would do nothing to negate the argument that Saudi laws are not passed by the will of the people and, therefore, I don't see why breaking a law in Saudi Arabia is anywhere near as bad as breaking a law in a democratic country. It's not a good argument to say, 'well, we're not that democratic either so it's okay.'

    As a more fundamental point, why should elections be what determines which laws are passed?
    Without turning this into an essay-based philosophical confrontation: because elections are decided by people and elected governments make laws for those people. I think it's only fair that people have some say in who governs them and how. If you don't agree with the idea of government of, for, and by the people, then we're not gonna get much further.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    British man who is facing 350 lashes in Saudi Arabia after homemade wine was found in his car have pleaded with David Cameron

    - Should Dave intervene? that's if he can, he's currently too busy sucking up to our new Chinese masters.

    Personally i think he should just take it like a man, considering he blatantly knew he was in the wrong.

    Bill
    He must have known alcohol was illegal and results in punishment, but he ultimately decided that going so far as to manufacturing his own was worth the risk. I disagree that he deserves such punishment, but as it is, if you get caught with alcohol in Saudi Arabia, this is what happens. He should have known better.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Stupid country, stupid rules. What I can't understand is why he was in Saudi Arabia in the first place.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    Look at the low class racism now


    ****ing animal
    Report report report

    I don't know why some people are using this thread to use derogatory terms against Arabs. Don't stand for it. Disgusting
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    He should have known better!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    He should have known better!
    I agree. He should have known better. While the Saudi royal family lounge around drinking Johnny Walker Blue Label all day, everybody knows that alcohol is strictly verboten for everybody else.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    .
    Racism is not okay,no matter how small it may be.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.