Farewell Intercourse Law

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

You know, you think when the law has been debunked almost entirely by actual Egyptian politicians people would stop beliving it.

Although it is nice to see that Americans are willing to take the Arab world seriously now, as long as they're slagging off someone America likes even less. And since the whole of America sems to see all Arabian people as terrorists that's saying a lot about their view of Egypt.

 

[Freechoice]

Law is cray cray.

Is it male only because it's an oppressive middle eastern nation or because the reverse is almost impossible?

Guys. Seriously. It isn't true. This is crazy. Why are you so credulous?

Why do you care that we care?

 

[Lt._nefarious]

There is but one appropriate question... Why? Why would anyone want that? Seriously help me out I am legitimately confused...

 

[Aidinthel]

Why do you care that we care?

I don't care that you care. I care that you seem to believe something that is not true, because you are (I assume) a citizen (or future citizen) of a democratic country, and when citizens believe untrue things that can very easily lead to problems.

There is but one appropriate question... Why? Why would anyone want that? Seriously help me out I am legitimately confused...

The answer is that the story is not true. Which you would have learned if you had read the thread before posting. Yes I am a bit irritated.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

There is but one appropriate question... Why? Why would anyone want that? Seriously help me out I am legitimately confused...

The answer is that the story is not true. Which you would have learned if you had read the thread before posting. Yes I am a bit irritated.

Well SOOORRY! You are obviously the king of--- No! This reflects badly on me... Yes I didn't read the thing but I assumed it wasn't a piss take but I was wrong and I apologise...

 

[Novania]

And by that I mean; I should come up with an actual post so I don't get suspended again, but since I don't really think I want to read into this subject anymore...yeah...I tried okay?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

O_O

STOP THE PRESSES! THE WORLD MUST KNO-

[HEADING=1]Except that it isn't actually true.[/HEADING]

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/about-that-egyptian-necrophilia-law/0019097

*smacks with newspaper*
Bad Escapists! Bad!

DX OW!

NO! Don't hit me with the FACTS again!

It hurts...

 

[Freechoice]

Why do you care that we care?

I don't care that you care. I care that you seem to believe something that is not true, because you are (I assume) a citizen (or future citizen) of a democratic country, and when citizens believe untrue things that can very easily lead to problems.

Well you believe that I believe that it's true. And since I don't, (you can tell by the flippant nature of the post) that means you believe something that is false. Thus you are endangering us.

Spoiler: ALSO

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

 

[Aidinthel]

you can tell by the flippant nature of the post

No, I really can't. This is the internet.

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Those are not mutually exclusive statements. All constitutional republic do not necessarily have universal citizenship.

 

[Aidinthel]

*assorted ignorance*

Ok, I'm pretty sure you aren't joking, no matter how much I wish you were. Here:

[HEADING=1]Except that it isn't actually true.[/HEADING]

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/about-that-egyptian-necrophilia-law/0019097

*smacks with newspaper*
Bad Escapists! Bad! When something seems too messed up to be true, you fact-check it. It only takes a few seconds to Google the truth. On the other hand, playing fact-checker around here is pretty fun, so maybe it's in my best interest if you guys continue being terribly irresponsible news consumers.

(Here's a hint: when a Moroccan news agency has to cite the freaking Huffington Post (for god's sake!) about events supposedly taking place in Egypt, that is a bit suspicious.)

 

[Freechoice]

Those are not mutually exclusive statements. All constitutional republic do not necessarily have universal citizenship.

Well no, they actually are. What you're thinking of is a representative democracy. It's almost like a constitutional republic, but there are some differences. A pure democracy is just basically mob rule.

Hence this subcategory on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic#Contrast

 

[Aidinthel]

Hence this subcategory on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic#Contrast

"Direct Democracy" is a specific type of government. "Democracy" in general is any government in which the people hold the power.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

---

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

In fact what makes you think I'd believe it and then go on to make such a joke?

Seriously? You realize we're on the internet, right? That wasn't even the most tasteless post in this thread.

Yes and while I may not be the most popular, prolific or well known poster I don't think I am known for not reading the source since I generally ask for one. I'm also one of those people that tends to read most posts before posting.

Also I'm not in the habit of posting bad puns and low content posts especially since I've been called verbose and rightly so on more than one occasion. I tend to leave that stuff to people who are better at it.

 

[Freechoice]

Hence this subcategory on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic#Contrast

"Direct Democracy" is a specific type of government. "Democracy" in general is any government in which the people hold the power.

There is a difference though. In a democracy, power is held by the people. In a republic of any kind, the power is derived from the people. While you could argue that the derivation of power from the people is still control by the people, I could point out the Supreme Court. Highest authority in the land and they're specifically not selected by the people.