ILovePhilosophy.com

The country of Brunei recently enforced the following Laws;

A law goes into effect Wednesday in Brunei that will punish adultery and homosexual sex with death.

Anyone found guilty of the offenses will be stoned to death, according to a new penal code based on Sharia law, an Islamic legal system that outlines strict corporal punishments.

The strict new laws were announced by the Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah, in 2014 and have been rolled out gradually in the small nation on the island of Borneo in Southeast Asia. The latest phase of implementation, including the brutal new provisions, was quietly announced on the Brunei attorney general's website in December.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/30/asia ... index.html

One point most people are still ignorant is the above aggression to impose such brutal laws are inherent within the ideology of Islam.

The irony is whilst the many governments and the famous who condemn the above, are at the same time apologists for the ideology of Islam which inherently insist on such brutalities.

One thing is I do NOT condemn these SOME Muslims' zeal to enforce these Laws which are the requirements within the ideology of Islam.
The problem is these Muslims are caught in a dilemma because they cannot go against God's words in the Quran to earn eternal life in Paradise to soothe their existential crisis.

Muslims are caught in a catch-22 situation.
To be morally human wise, they have to go against the barbaric Laws of Allah. But because the existential crisis is a more stronger and threatening force, they would prefer to go with Allah's Law than the more humane obligations.

Do you see the inherent evil elements within the ideology of TROP [the religion of peace]?
Comments?

Why does it matter if homos and hussies are stoned to death? Don't you need another religion in order to proclaim Islam is wrong?

Do the new laws exempt visiting members of the lgt community?
What if, lets say , Rachael Maddow or Anderson Cooper were to visit and try to interview the Sultan, would they also be in harm's way?

Meno_ wrote:Do the new laws exempt visiting members of the lgt community?
What if, lets say , Rachael Maddow or Anderson Cooper were to visit and try to interview the Sultan, could they also be in harm's way?

I bet Fox News and the Washington Post would run different versions on it, if it were to happen.

Would Trump retaliate by flying in the secret service removing the Sultan into a U.S. max.security establishment, and turning Brunei into an annexed territory like Puerto Rico, for who ever heard of hurricanes in Brunei.

Meno_ wrote:Do the new laws exempt visiting members of the lgt community?
What if, lets say , Rachael Maddow or Anderson Cooper were to visit and try to interview the Sultan, would they also be in harm's way?

I read that only applies to Muslims and committed within that country.
That's discrimination??

Whether it is applicable to Muslims or others, the point here is such Laws are inhumane and barbaric to the individual's basic human right. It is obvious that is an insult to the LGBT individuals.

One point to note is the Muslims apologists and ironically the Left which is a strong supporter of LBGT are also a strong supporter of Islam based on their ignorance or political convenience.

While the apologists and the Left are coddling and placating to Islam, they will realize after it is too late when certain groups of Islamists take whatever control. Note how fast the two Islamists abuse their power to the Islamic agenda the moment they are in Congress.
Analoglically, the apologists and the Left [many] are seduced by the rattler's sweet sound of the rattler-snake.

While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

Oh yes, the sultan of Brunei ...

The bastion of morality!

The man notorious for paying, and almost bankrupting his country, for the highest cost for a single prostitute in the world 600,000 dollars in today's money, 400,000 at the time.

Not to mention, if he couldn't buy them, he and his security forces would ground the planes of world famous models and actresses and rape them at the Brunei airport.

Oh yes, swell man, right ?

People like that deserve a special circle in hell for sure.

These laws just prove it even more

Gloominary wrote:While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

I agree there must be some sort of punishment for adultery [e.g. justification for divorce] but not homosexuality.

Ecmandu wrote:Oh yes, the sultan of Brunei ...

The bastion of morality!

The man notorious for paying, and almost bankrupting his country, for the highest cost for a single prostitute in the world 600,000 dollars in today's money, 400,000 at the time.

Not to mention, if he couldn't buy them, he and his security forces would ground the planes of world famous models and actresses and rape them at the Brunei airport.

Oh yes, swell man, right ?

People like that deserve a special circle in hell for sure.

These laws just prove it even more

There are all sorts of DIRTY royalty and political leaders.
Based in his pasts, the King of Brunei is hypocritical.
But I believe he is more driven to ensure he will not be dethroned by the Muslim masses and majority, thus he has no choice but to please the fundamentalist Muslims.

But the more serious issue is the King and kingdom of Brunei resort to rely on the authority of an illusory God [which is impossible to be real] for its laws.
It is in Islam that God said so, i.e. adultery and homosexual acts [& proven homosexuals] must be punished by stoning to death.
It is because God said so, thus there is no compromise but to enact such laws.

Analogically, it the same as the some country enacting certain Laws based on what Santa said so!

This is why it is so critical to demonstrate the real truth that
'God is an impossibility to be real'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

When is proven God is an impossibility, then what the Government of Brunei is relying upon barbaric man-made doctrines to enact their brutal, barbaric laws. That was never a real God who delivered his words, commands and laws that are enforceable on any human being.

When God is proven as an impossibility to be real, no government, groups or anyone will have any opportunity to impose their rights and evil intents on others in God's name.

Gloominary wrote:While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

Why not natural consequences? People judge you socially. Decide to side with your partner against you in some small or large ways. The person you supposedly loved gets angry, or leaves you, or also cheats, or goes cold, or stops having sex with you or is, well, sad and that affects you....we are pretty creative with punishments but also people have internal punishments.
It seems to me this a place where we don't need government or court involvement. And then sometimes poeple cheat, perhaps often, when something else is fucked up in the relationship the other person is responsible for. They ignore you regularly, they have gone cold, they dismiss your feelings...whatever. The dramatic act of adultery might be committed by the person who has been and even still is the more committed loving partner. I am not saying it justifies the adultery, or accepting that it doesn't, just that it can be a facile decision to call the other spouse a victim.

Prismatic567 wrote:

Gloominary wrote:While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

I agree there must be some sort of punishment for adultery [e.g. justification for divorce] but not homosexuality.

I don't think that there should be a punishment for adultery. A couple should be honest with each other and allow each other to have sex with others.

bahman wrote:

Prismatic567 wrote:

Gloominary wrote:While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

I agree there must be some sort of punishment for adultery [e.g. justification for divorce] but not homosexuality.

I don't think that there should be a punishment for adultery. A couple should be honest with each other and allow each other to have sex with others.

I have nothing against any couple doing this. Though at some point it becomes strange to refer to them as a couple.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

bahman wrote:

Prismatic567 wrote:I agree there must be some sort of punishment for adultery [e.g. justification for divorce] but not homosexuality.

I don't think that there should be a punishment for adultery. A couple should be honest with each other and allow each other to have sex with others.

I have nothing against any couple doing this. Though at some point it becomes strange to refer to them as a couple.

Family can be a center for raising children. Children also will have different opinion about adultery.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Gloominary wrote:While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

Why not natural consequences? People judge you socially. Decide to side with your partner against you in some small or large ways. The person you supposedly loved gets angry, or leaves you, or also cheats, or goes cold, or stops having sex with you or is, well, sad and that affects you....we are pretty creative with punishments but also people have internal punishments.
It seems to me this a place where we don't need government or court involvement. And then sometimes poeple cheat, perhaps often, when something else is fucked up in the relationship the other person is responsible for. They ignore you regularly, they have gone cold, they dismiss your feelings...whatever. The dramatic act of adultery might be committed by the person who has been and even still is the more committed loving partner. I am not saying it justifies the adultery, or accepting that it doesn't, just that it can be a facile decision to call the other spouse a victim.

What would the word natural mean in this context?
To me it would mean what individuals and communities would do in the absence of big government and modern, abstract, simplistic ideologies like liberalism and libertarianism philosophers dreamt up ex nihilo overnight.
Husbands/wives often report being so angry with their adulterous spouse they could kill them, and some do, in spite of the legal consequences.
For millennia this desire for retribution was institutionalized by many if not every culture from primitive hunter-gatherers to more advanced tribes.
They made adultery a crime, and the consequences were often swift, and severe.
Only now, in the post-industrial, technocratic age have we begun to treat it more casually.

But I think penalizing adultery could even be made compatible with libertarianism.
After all libertarianism is all about contracts, and marriage is a kind of contract.
If we have business contracts, why not sexual ones?
There could be different forms of marriage contracts spouses could agree to and pay the state to recognize and enforce.
Partners could agree on the consequences before they marry, from paying fines, to imprisonment, to death in states that permit it.

And it's not like jealousy only exists because of the institution of marriage, no the institution of marriage was created to deal with the natural, jealous feelings people have, it didn't invent them, rather it's a way of regulating them.

Prismatic567 wrote:

Gloominary wrote:While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

I agree there must be some sort of punishment for adultery [e.g. justification for divorce] but not homosexuality.

Agreed, I don't have a problem with homosexuality, it's consensual, harmless, natural and we have too many kids as is, we don't need to force people into heterosexual relationships, but I have a problem with adultery because it's a violation of a contract, does harm to both spouses and families, and jealousy is natural, and healthy within marriage.

If spouses want to sleep with someone else they need to get a divorce, and there should be big fines for the spouse who initiates divorce, unless they are genuinely fleeing abuse, severe neglect or adultery.

Observe Rome, a wide variety of sexual expression was permitted, including homosexuality, yet adultery was criminalized, because adultery is different, it's a violation of a very serious contract.

If you don't take the contract seriously, don't get married, simple as that.

Gloominary wrote:

Prismatic567 wrote:

Gloominary wrote:While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

I agree there must be some sort of punishment for adultery [e.g. justification for divorce] but not homosexuality.

Agreed, I don't have a problem with homosexuality, it's consensual, harmless, natural and we have too many kids as is, we don't need to force people into heterosexual relationships, but I have a problem with adultery because it's a violation of a contract, does harm to both spouses and families, and jealousy is natural, and healthy within marriage.

If spouses want to sleep with someone else they need to get a divorce, and there should be big fines for the spouse who initiates divorce, unless they are genuinely fleeing abuse, severe neglect or adultery.

Observe Rome, a wide variety of sexual expression was permitted, including homosexuality, yet adultery was criminalized, because adultery is different, it's a violation of a very serious contract.

If you don't take the contract seriously, don't get married, simple as that.

Yes, the contract ... and the need for both parties to comply with the agreed terms of the contract.

bahman wrote:

Prismatic567 wrote:

Gloominary wrote:While I don't think adulterers should be stoned, there should be some sort of punishment for it.

I agree there must be some sort of punishment for adultery [e.g. justification for divorce] but not homosexuality.

I don't think that there should be a punishment for adultery. A couple should be honest with each other and allow each other to have sex with others.

Note the mentioned of the agreed original contract. Adultery would imply there is no consent from one of the party.

However if a couple decide on mutual agreement to go into sex-swapping or orgies with others [terminate the that specific term of the original marital contract], that would be their discretion. I have no problem with that.

Gloominary wrote:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Why not natural consequences? People judge you socially. Decide to side with your partner against you in some small or large ways. The person you supposedly loved gets angry, or leaves you, or also cheats, or goes cold, or stops having sex with you or is, well, sad and that affects you....we are pretty creative with punishments but also people have internal punishments.
It seems to me this a place where we don't need government or court involvement. And then sometimes poeple cheat, perhaps often, when something else is fucked up in the relationship the other person is responsible for. They ignore you regularly, they have gone cold, they dismiss your feelings...whatever. The dramatic act of adultery might be committed by the person who has been and even still is the more committed loving partner. I am not saying it justifies the adultery, or accepting that it doesn't, just that it can be a facile decision to call the other spouse a victim.

What would the word natural mean in this context?

I gave examples. I have experienced them.

To me it would mean what individuals and communities would do in the absence of big government and modern, abstract, simplistic ideologies like liberalism and libertarianism philosophers dreamt up ex nihilo overnight.
Husbands/wives often report being so angry with their adulterous spouse they could kill them, and some do, in spite of the legal consequences.
For millennia this desire for retribution was institutionalized by many if not every culture from primitive hunter-gatherers to more advanced tribes.
They made adultery a crime, and the consequences were often swift, and severe.
Only now, in the post-industrial, technocratic age have we begun to treat it more casually.

I think the laws against honor type killings and jealous rage killing are fine.

But I think penalizing adultery could even be made compatible with libertarianism.
After all libertarianism is all about contracts, and marriage is a kind of contract.
If we have business contracts, why not sexual ones?
There could be different forms of marriage contracts spouses could agree to and pay the state to recognize and enforce.
Partners could agree on the consequences before they marry, from paying fines, to imprisonment, to death in states that permit it.

If you are married and cheat there are still financial consequences. It is treated like a contract, though less and less.

And it's not like jealousy only exists because of the institution of marriage, no the institution of marriage was created to deal with the natural, jealous feelings people have, it didn't invent them, rather it's a way of regulating them.

[/quote]Sure, but I don't see a reason to punish adultery like a crime.

I don't want the state to do that. I don't want the woman I love to not fuck around because the state will hurt her. That doesn't help me, at all, in the slightest. That just means fear of third parties keeps her from doing what she wants. Rather than self-care, love for me, etc.

The state is welcome to protect my body and property from strangers, but if I need to state to regulate the behavior of someone I love, I am the problem. Because I should not be in a relationship with them. The other person is likely also messed up, but I need to take responsibility for the choice I made
and I will be better off with someone else if I actually need the state to be a whip to keep them loving and respectful of me.

Prismatic,

Can you argue with the above otherwise as regard what is real?

Note it is very obvious justified empirical evidence represent 90% of what is supposed to be real. The 10% reservation is provision for empirical illusions. Do you dispute this?

The 10% uncertainty within the empirical perspective is covered by rationality and critical thinking which is anchored within philosophy-proper.

Note I often produced the quote from Russell where he claimed,
"Perhaps there is no table (objective) at all" 
This doubt can only be supported by rational and critically anchored philosophically.

Where reality is concerned I tend not to think in such binary or absolute terms, as you seem to. I think that empirical evidence is very important and tells us a great deal about the nature of reality. But I don't rule out the possibility that things can exist beyond the scope of what empirical methods of examination are able to find. For me, reality is both empirical and experiential, I'm not trying to prove anything. I am just a person in a Universe that is absolutely massive. How can I possibly hope to be to making absolute claims about what is universally real and what is not?

I did not claim my argument to be absolutely perfect as with theists who claimed their God is absolutely [unconditionally] perfect.

My argument is relatively perfect and conditional to the respective perspective and Framework.
First my syllogism is logically perfect in accordance to the rules of logic.
In addition, I have provided sound arguments for my P1 and P2.

Thus if you disagree, then prove my P1 and/or P2 is wrong and false.

This is not right from my perspective. How can I prove that your arguement is wrong if you believe that it is perfect? Do you not see the problem?

I don't want the state to do that. I don't want the woman I love to not fuck around because the state will hurt her. That doesn't help me, at all, in the slightest. That just means fear of third parties keeps her from doing what she wants. Rather than self-care, love for me, etc.

The state is welcome to protect my body and property from strangers, but if I need to state to regulate the behavior of someone I love, I am the problem. Because I should not be in a relationship with them. The other person is likely also messed up, but I need to take responsibility for the choice I made
and I will be better off with someone else if I actually need the state to be a whip to keep them loving and respectful of me.

The point of criminalizing adultery is not to force someone you love to be with you, but to keep someone you love, who no longer loves you (as much) or never loved you in the first place from disrespecting you, taking advantage of you, using you, claiming they love you and only you, and than doing something completely different behind your back.
We're talking about criminalizing adultery here, not divorce, if they're no longer devoted to you, they should get a divorce, or if they were never devoted to you, they shouldn't've married you in the first place.
They need to be held accountable for the vows they voluntarily took.

I'm going to put this very succinctly and I hope everyone on this board understands the full magnitude of this:

Nobody fucking owns anybody

A vow of ownership is evil, even a vow of mutual ownership.

Now you know.

Ecmandu wrote:I'm going to put this very succinctly and I hope everyone on this board understands the full magnitude of this:

Nobody fucking owns anybody

A vow of ownership is evil, even a vow of mutual ownership.

Now you know.

I suppose we have to dispense with the economy too, since it's almost entirely dependent on contracts, on limited, mutual, temporary 'ownership', if that's what you want to call it.
To me it's just being honest and upfront with the person you profess to love.

Ecmandu wrote:I'm going to put this very succinctly and I hope everyone on this board understands the full magnitude of this:

Nobody fucking owns anybody

A vow of ownership is evil, even a vow of mutual ownership.

Now you know.

Who is talking about enforced chattel slavery?
A marital agreement is not about anyone owning another, it is just another contract that is subjected to the universal Principles of the Laws of Contract.

To reiterate, marriage, where adultery is forbidden, isn't about forcing your partner to be with you.
After all your partner is still free to divorce you.
It's about preventing yourself from cheating on them, so they can be reassured the love and devotion you profess is genuine.
It's a vow to do your best to make things work, and not cheat.
You can have them, or not, but you're agreeing you can't have them, and someone else.

As for the person your partner has committed adultery with, if they're not married themselves, perhaps nothing should happen to them legally, since it's not their contract.
The onus would fall squarely on the married person, not on the unmarried, which would be a sort of libertarian innovation to how adultery was traditionally treated.

Gloominary wrote:The point of criminalizing adultery is not to force someone you love to be with you, but to keep someone you love, who no longer loves you (as much) or never loved you in the first place from disrespecting you, taking advantage of you, using you, claiming they love you and only you, and than doing something completely different behind your back.

So, it would be OK if they did it openly, in this justification. IOW if they took the risks of natural causes. But generlly it is the spouse who reports the crime, so I generally would have to know. And frankly I don't feel any benefit from say, one of her friends reporting her to the police. Tell me, and let natural emotional social consquences follow.

We're talking about criminalizing adultery here, not divorce, if they're no longer devoted to you, they should get a divorce, or if they were never devoted to you, they shouldn't've married you in the first place.

I think that's too simple. Though certainly these may be better options. and I think it is up to me, not the state to decide how she should have handled it. I don't need them coming in, when I am capable of dealing with it, the way I want to. I wouldn't want the state coming in regarding friendships. My friend is back talking me and other shit, so the state gets involved. I realize there is a legal aspect to the marriage, it is an official contract, which actually I think is wrong. I had to get married because of international aspects of our situation. Or, let's say, it made sense for practical reasons and the idea certainly fit our feelings for each other. But otherwise I would not have done it. I don't see it as the state's business and I also see them as not competent to deal with my relationships or to be my whip.

They need to be held accountable for the vows they voluntarily took.

To me, accountalbe to me, and to children if they are involved and to the other guy also. In the sense that she or I - if I cheated - might be fucking over someone else, the other woman, let's say, also.

To have the state punish her: It's like I am a child and the state has to look out for my welfare and take care of things I can take care of. Or it is like we cannot trust the social world to work this out. NOthing is going to fix it all, but I don't need the people who, for example, might have been school principals - iow some bureaucrat - fixing my wife's unfaithfulness. Or lawyers getting in there. I mean, that is like getting a dentist to fix my bike.

And the punishments would also be as much category errors.'

As the victim, if it was that simple that I was the victim, I get nothing from the punishment. I don't think society does either. It is a mess out there now, but we need to find our way through it. Controlling the mess, pushing it further underground, making it 'work' with even less freedom, that's just hiding from our fears that we will not be loved as if we an guarantee it. Or fear of not being respected. Or fear of being cuckholded. Or fear of not being good enough at sex. Or not being lovable enough.

I get laws that protect strangers from strangers and even loved ones from the violence of each other. But this...no.

We need to work this out between people, just as we do friendships. Which entails, not always having it work out. But then government involvement is at best no guarantee of this either.