On the verge of tearing out my hair
An explanation for "Terrorism Legislation and 'Primitive' Punishments" of July 13:
The point I was really trying to make, in the midst of all that madness (sorry people!) would perhaps be better illustrated by a hypothetical example:
Premise 1:
Country A has certain laws and punitive actionsPremise 2: Country B has difference laws and punitive actions
Premise 3: A, being the egotistical maniac it is, continuously declares that the laws, etc of B are b
arbaric (and even unacceptable in this world) and "primitive"
arbaric (and even unacceptable in this world) and "primitive"Intended Conclusion of A: A is so far more advanced than B could ever be and proud of it.
My question
: but what if B, having learnt from the past, has evolved to its "primitive" laws, etc over the years? Then does that not make A's laws the "primitive" ones for they are still in the past (learning)??Why
do I get the feeling that this illustration makes no more sense, if not much more senseless, than my earlier blog??
3 comments:
thanks for the explanation.:-)
questions about how a country evolved can be easily answered by studying history. then you may be able answer whether any country so to speak 'advanced' to 'primitive' punishment.
and this is exactly what's wrong with my whole concept!! history!! ;o))) Or maybe all historians have got it wrong so far..and my theory is yet to be discovered!
Oh and yeah, the world does revolve around me..err..I mean my brain! ;o)
Tnx for humouring me! ;o)
you are welcome :-)
and world does move ( not sure about revolve) around one's head relatively speaking . :-)
Post a Comment