I don't know what's worse, the fact that someone made this, or that someone somewhere will buy it and attach it to their door to show everyone how much they 'welcome' visitors to their house.
The version of Snow White I remember reading as a child ends with the wicked queen being forced to wear a pair of iron shoes which have been heated in the fire, and made to dance in them until she falls down dead. And the version of Rapunzel in the article, where the prince is blinded by thorns, is the most familiar one to me too - I don't think I've actually read a 'tame' version of it, if one exists. Grimm indeed!
My instructor taught me that while I should always use my mirrors, I should never totally trust them, so if I'm moving to a different lane I will always turn my head and look to see what's there.
'American Norwegian' (which one are you?) of course I have felt the need for vengeance, when I have been personally wronged. But when someone treads on my foot I don't stamp on theirs. If someone crashed into the back of my car with through careless driving, I wouldn't take a sledgehammer to their car to equalise the damage. In the heat of the moment I might want to, of course, but if we all acted on those feelings we'd have total anarchy.
And that is exactly why sentencing of criminals is given to judges, who are not emotionally connected to the victims of the crime.
When talking about 'should Breivik be put to death' we are talking about retributive justice ONLY. Other forms of justice deal with such situations differently, but retributive justice is very much to be equated with vengeance. It's 'an eye for an eye', which may seem to be 'just' to the victims or their families, but really brings those who promote it down to the level of the criminals.
Breivik killed people, so people here are saying that justice would be served by killing him. A life for a life. Justice, they wish to call it.
Okay, so what if someone cuts off someone's arm? A terrible crime, one of course requiring justice. But would anyone here advocate chopping off the criminal's arm in order to pay for what he'd done?
There are many acid attacks on women in various parts of the world. Is it right, is it civilised, to punish the perpetrator by pouring acid onto his face? Surely that would be fair. Surely that would be justice?
No. Such punishments are self-evidently cruel and barbaric. They are actions we would all condemn if we saw that they were to be carried out in other 'less civilised' countries. Google 'Majid Movahedi' for an acid blinding case for which there was a huge international outcry when Iran was about to blind a man with acid because he'd done the same thing to a woman.
Why should a death sentence be seen as any less cruel and barbaric than removal of a limb, or any other 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' sentence? Is murder a worse crime than cutting off an arm? If it is, then the death penalty must also be worse than a sentence in which an arm is removed. As far as I know, no US states support amputation as a form of punishment, but many of them still put people to death. Why have one and not the other?
The USA is not only wrong on upholding the death sentence, it also has a particularly bad record for keeping people in solitary confinement for DECADES at a time, which is itself a cruel punishment - mental torture. Here's a recent story on that:
That relates to the original Breivik story, which was a story pointing out Norway's opposition to solitary confinement. 500 prisoners held in solitary confinement for over a decade, and that is just in ONE American prison. That's not justice, it is institutionalised sadism.
21 years may seem lenient, but they can keep him in jail indefinitely if they believe he is still a risk to society after the 21 years is up. Many countries have a system like that. The UK gives mandatory life sentences for murder, but 'life' does not always mean 'the life of the prisoner'. The judge usually gives a minimum number of years to be served, and at the end of that period the criminal is assessed for release. He can be held in prison indefinitely if it's not felt it's not safe to release him.
I imagine that this is exactly what will happen to Breivik. The only difference is that the 'you must serve at least X years' has a limit of 21 in Norway. The 'at least' will still apply because he will be assessed before release.
Last point: I still find it strange that in the USA, where every lawmaker in the country professes his/her Christianity (try to get elected if you don't), the phrase 'turn the other cheek' is never mentioned. Presumably the compassionate words of a certain beardy hippy aren't worth the paper they're now so widely printed on.
Ted you are correct. That kind of justice (the death penalty) is not civilised enough.
Be reassured that the USA stands among countries like China, North Korea, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan and many other African and Middle East countries, sharing your interpretation of 'justice'. Although 'vengeance' would perhaps be a more appropriate word.
100% what #10, 'Another Norwegian', said, and said extremely well. I live in the UK which is closer to Norwegian attitudes to life, the universe and everything, but I wish we were even closer, at least from what I've just read. That said I know very little about Norway and this has made me want to learn more.
To Ted, who said "I’m just not sure why they don’t just kill him", here's one possible answer: 'they' are better than that. Better people. More civilised. More humane.
Is it just me or does anybody else see seven and not five? Not to mention all the other partially obscured ones. The picture appears to simply be a (badly) screened-off view of a much larger array of holes. And of course they don't overlap.
Alex (#4), you say 'atheists are typically the most intolerant group you’d find on the Web'. If by 'intolerant' you mean 'intolerant of BS and willing to describe it as such' then yes, you are correct - atheists are intolerant of BS, and will show it for what it is.
Perhaps it's a reaction to centuries of history where questioning religious beliefs was not only unacceptable but downright dangerous. Of course in many ways it still is. You can walk through a town wearing a crucifix and it won't get a mention, not a negative one anyway. Try wearing a T-shirt saying 'I am an atheist' (or something similar) and see how that works.
In the US pro-Christian billboards are everywhere. When atheists try to put up their billboards (even purposefully inoffensive messages such as 'Are you an atheist? You're not alone') there is uproar. Which side is more intolerant?
In the 'real' world atheists don't try to blow up abortion clinics because of their non-belief in God. Or fly planes into buildings. Or... do I need to continue? I won't, since you are talking about atheists online. Perhaps it's just safer for atheists to criticise religion online, which says less about atheists and more about the angry and violent reactions towards atheists if they stood up in the middle of town and spoke against religion in the same way that street-preaching Christians speak FOR it.
I'd be curious to know how you judge the level of intolerance in order to come to the conclusion that atheists are the *most* intolerant group. How would you rank an atheist saying 'the Bible is a book of fiction' against a Christian who says 'homosexuality is an abomination' or 'gays should burn in Hell'?
How many atheists attend anti-religious meetings every week? Now think how many Christian attend pro-religious meetings every week, many of which rail against the lives of ordinary people which their religion tells them are living evil, despicable lives. Not all of them do, but they vastly outnumber atheists, of that there is no doubt.
Atheists are simply intolerant of intolerance. That's one of the reasons they are often so vocal. It's also true to say that there are more pro-religion stories on the web than anti-religion stories, which is why you might see more opposing views from atheists. But go find a mainstream pro-atheism story (if you can, they are rare) and watch the hordes of nasty, vicious followers of faith descend upon it. Compare the tone of their comments, which frequently contain hopes that non-believers will be burned for all eternity. Is 'your religion is just a book of fiction' more intolerant than that? I think not.
It's rare for atheists to send death threats, but many atheists (particularly female ones) receive online threats of death, rape, and other vicious acts, many of a personal nature, sent from religious folk. Atheists don't tend to do that. There are exceptions, nobody would say otherwise, just as I'm not saying that all religious people send death threats, but you simply can't compare one side with the other and conclude that atheists are the nastier bunch. It's just not true.
It doesn't take atheism to be wary of the more way-out claims of religious texts. All it takes is an examination of evidence. The fact that atheists are prepared to do that, while many religious people completely ignore evidence or refuse to even consider it in the first place, is very telling. Atheists tend to be intolerant of impossible or unreasonable claims. Evidence or GTFO probably sums it up nicely.
Going back to this story: 'a seismic event that happened sometime between the years 26 and 36'. That's a whole decade. Look up how many seismic events happen every single year all over the world. Thousands. Why would those 10 years be any different? Moreover, if the Bible WAS a book of myths, would it not be credible that a historical event (the earthquake) would be added to a story to give it more colour? Myths are stories told and re-told, to which details are added which were not necessarily found in the original version. I'm not saying that happened here, but it's certainly possible.
Many religious people will, I'm sure, simply point and say 'see, an earthquake when Jesus died - proof!'. They won't raise the point I just mentioned. They should. The fact that many won't is just another reason they should be criticised for their blind faith. If that's intolerance, I for one think there isn't enough of it online.
number1guy, the failure of a procedure is not the issue, it is the reason for the failure. Operations fail for many reasons, but in this case the issue is failure because of NEGLIGENCE. And yes, surgeons better be afraid of being punished for negligence because if they're not they are being reckless with the health of their patients. Follow procedures, go by the book, and things like this won't happen.
I'm a little surprised that everyone here is attaching blame to the mother. If the surgeon had failed to remove a swab or surgical instrument after a patient was hit by a car and needed an operation, would anyone be saying 'maybe next time you'll use the bus, won't you?'
Miss Cellania you say 'I’d take the baby in immediately, and so would plenty of other people'. Well in that case I challenge you to begin the process of adopting a child - immediately.
A doctor is found to be negligent and is rightly punished for the consequences of his negligence. The penalty seems fair, given that the doctor's actions directly led to the birth of the child, which is causing financial hardship for the mother - he should pay a share of that child's upbringing.
Possible problem: when the bottle is full, you tip it towards your plate and the entire contents slide out, all at once. The ketchup video demo seemed to suggest that would happen. You'd be fine with a squeezy bottle, which can be controlled with the squeezing action, but in open-top bottles the coating seems to be TOO effective.
And that is exactly why sentencing of criminals is given to judges, who are not emotionally connected to the victims of the crime.
When talking about 'should Breivik be put to death' we are talking about retributive justice ONLY. Other forms of justice deal with such situations differently, but retributive justice is very much to be equated with vengeance. It's 'an eye for an eye', which may seem to be 'just' to the victims or their families, but really brings those who promote it down to the level of the criminals.
Breivik killed people, so people here are saying that justice would be served by killing him. A life for a life. Justice, they wish to call it.
Okay, so what if someone cuts off someone's arm? A terrible crime, one of course requiring justice. But would anyone here advocate chopping off the criminal's arm in order to pay for what he'd done?
There are many acid attacks on women in various parts of the world. Is it right, is it civilised, to punish the perpetrator by pouring acid onto his face? Surely that would be fair. Surely that would be justice?
No. Such punishments are self-evidently cruel and barbaric. They are actions we would all condemn if we saw that they were to be carried out in other 'less civilised' countries. Google 'Majid Movahedi' for an acid blinding case for which there was a huge international outcry when Iran was about to blind a man with acid because he'd done the same thing to a woman.
Why should a death sentence be seen as any less cruel and barbaric than removal of a limb, or any other 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' sentence? Is murder a worse crime than cutting off an arm? If it is, then the death penalty must also be worse than a sentence in which an arm is removed. As far as I know, no US states support amputation as a form of punishment, but many of them still put people to death. Why have one and not the other?
The USA is not only wrong on upholding the death sentence, it also has a particularly bad record for keeping people in solitary confinement for DECADES at a time, which is itself a cruel punishment - mental torture. Here's a recent story on that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/pelican-bay-lawsuit-solitary-confinement_n_1560918.html
That relates to the original Breivik story, which was a story pointing out Norway's opposition to solitary confinement. 500 prisoners held in solitary confinement for over a decade, and that is just in ONE American prison. That's not justice, it is institutionalised sadism.
21 years may seem lenient, but they can keep him in jail indefinitely if they believe he is still a risk to society after the 21 years is up. Many countries have a system like that. The UK gives mandatory life sentences for murder, but 'life' does not always mean 'the life of the prisoner'. The judge usually gives a minimum number of years to be served, and at the end of that period the criminal is assessed for release. He can be held in prison indefinitely if it's not felt it's not safe to release him.
I imagine that this is exactly what will happen to Breivik. The only difference is that the 'you must serve at least X years' has a limit of 21 in Norway. The 'at least' will still apply because he will be assessed before release.
Last point: I still find it strange that in the USA, where every lawmaker in the country professes his/her Christianity (try to get elected if you don't), the phrase 'turn the other cheek' is never mentioned. Presumably the compassionate words of a certain beardy hippy aren't worth the paper they're now so widely printed on.
Be reassured that the USA stands among countries like China, North Korea, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan and many other African and Middle East countries, sharing your interpretation of 'justice'. Although 'vengeance' would perhaps be a more appropriate word.
To Ted, who said "I’m just not sure why they don’t just kill him", here's one possible answer: 'they' are better than that. Better people. More civilised. More humane.
For me, this video has always summed it up perfectly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMho2cP1NE
Perhaps it's a reaction to centuries of history where questioning religious beliefs was not only unacceptable but downright dangerous. Of course in many ways it still is. You can walk through a town wearing a crucifix and it won't get a mention, not a negative one anyway. Try wearing a T-shirt saying 'I am an atheist' (or something similar) and see how that works.
In the US pro-Christian billboards are everywhere. When atheists try to put up their billboards (even purposefully inoffensive messages such as 'Are you an atheist? You're not alone') there is uproar. Which side is more intolerant?
In the 'real' world atheists don't try to blow up abortion clinics because of their non-belief in God. Or fly planes into buildings. Or... do I need to continue? I won't, since you are talking about atheists online. Perhaps it's just safer for atheists to criticise religion online, which says less about atheists and more about the angry and violent reactions towards atheists if they stood up in the middle of town and spoke against religion in the same way that street-preaching Christians speak FOR it.
I'd be curious to know how you judge the level of intolerance in order to come to the conclusion that atheists are the *most* intolerant group. How would you rank an atheist saying 'the Bible is a book of fiction' against a Christian who says 'homosexuality is an abomination' or 'gays should burn in Hell'?
How many atheists attend anti-religious meetings every week? Now think how many Christian attend pro-religious meetings every week, many of which rail against the lives of ordinary people which their religion tells them are living evil, despicable lives. Not all of them do, but they vastly outnumber atheists, of that there is no doubt.
Atheists are simply intolerant of intolerance. That's one of the reasons they are often so vocal. It's also true to say that there are more pro-religion stories on the web than anti-religion stories, which is why you might see more opposing views from atheists. But go find a mainstream pro-atheism story (if you can, they are rare) and watch the hordes of nasty, vicious followers of faith descend upon it. Compare the tone of their comments, which frequently contain hopes that non-believers will be burned for all eternity. Is 'your religion is just a book of fiction' more intolerant than that? I think not.
It's rare for atheists to send death threats, but many atheists (particularly female ones) receive online threats of death, rape, and other vicious acts, many of a personal nature, sent from religious folk. Atheists don't tend to do that. There are exceptions, nobody would say otherwise, just as I'm not saying that all religious people send death threats, but you simply can't compare one side with the other and conclude that atheists are the nastier bunch. It's just not true.
It doesn't take atheism to be wary of the more way-out claims of religious texts. All it takes is an examination of evidence. The fact that atheists are prepared to do that, while many religious people completely ignore evidence or refuse to even consider it in the first place, is very telling. Atheists tend to be intolerant of impossible or unreasonable claims. Evidence or GTFO probably sums it up nicely.
Going back to this story: 'a seismic event that happened sometime between the years 26 and 36'. That's a whole decade. Look up how many seismic events happen every single year all over the world. Thousands. Why would those 10 years be any different? Moreover, if the Bible WAS a book of myths, would it not be credible that a historical event (the earthquake) would be added to a story to give it more colour? Myths are stories told and re-told, to which details are added which were not necessarily found in the original version. I'm not saying that happened here, but it's certainly possible.
Many religious people will, I'm sure, simply point and say 'see, an earthquake when Jesus died - proof!'. They won't raise the point I just mentioned. They should. The fact that many won't is just another reason they should be criticised for their blind faith. If that's intolerance, I for one think there isn't enough of it online.
I'm a little surprised that everyone here is attaching blame to the mother. If the surgeon had failed to remove a swab or surgical instrument after a patient was hit by a car and needed an operation, would anyone be saying 'maybe next time you'll use the bus, won't you?'
Miss Cellania you say 'I’d take the baby in immediately, and so would plenty of other people'. Well in that case I challenge you to begin the process of adopting a child - immediately.