Read again: not punished even if its discovered.

> You failed to read properly, no where did I or the other guy state that it is legal in private. The argument was about the limits of the law about events it can't perceive.

They said: "Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private". If that indeed was to mean "it's fine as long as you do not get caught", that's a pretty pointless argument when discussing laws - because that is indeed true of pretty much all laws. E.g. "Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." suggests that's not what's meant though, but rather that indeed as long as you don't do anything public (which might "disrupt social order") you are fine. Which AFAIK is the case in some places re religious practice: you can be of the "wrong" or no religion, practice it in private circles, but don't do anything public.

>Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private. If that indeed was to mean "it's fine as long as you do not get caught", that's a pretty pointless argument when discussing laws

Wrong again, I stated several times that it's about the limits of law, yet you still keep ignoring the answer and asking if I meant X or Y. It's not 'pointless' because the hyperbolic statement about being punished just for 'existing' was made. At least try to be more charitable in your biased interpretation for the sake of civility.

>Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." suggests that's not what's meant though

I don't even see the how your inference makes any sense here. AGAIN it is about the LIMITS of the law, if you keep something private no one can punish you, but if you wilfully disrupt the social order it will have consequences in any place of the world.

I kinda assumed it was meant to be a defense, not a confirmation of "yes, sharia law is maximally oppressive about it" with a generic point of "actually, you don't get punished for doing something illegal if nobody catches you".

I am only responsible for what I state, not what others (mis)understand. AGAIN, it was in reference to the hyperbolic statement that the root comment made about being punished for just 'existing'.

In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote

> but there are for acting upon it publicly.

So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.

>In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote

You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind.

>So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.

There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.

jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion.

> In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind

Note the lack of a "by" before "jedimind".

> jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion.

I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.

As the sentence says, I quote the response to to what you called the hyperbolic statement. Not the hyperbolic statement.

Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see your point. Fact is that the hyperbolic statement that one is punished for 'just existing' is false. The arguments dealing with that are quite simple & concise, so what exactly are you arguing for?