On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
Petitions like this are about giving more rights and choices available to people, as is pro-choice. I don't understand your logic on how thinking that a mother should be able to make decisions about herself leads to you being unable to 'assert' your opinions on others. Or that how giving more rights to people is asserting opinions on/forcing anyone. Wouldn't it be: mothers should be able to make decisions about themselves -> gay people should be able to make decisions about themselves (to engage in a homosexual relationship, for example)?
In any case, I signed it and hopefully the petition will help.
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
Petitions like this are about giving more rights and choices available to people, as is pro-choice. I don't understand your logic on how thinking that a mother should be able to make decisions about herself leads to you being unable to 'assert' your opinions on others. Or that how giving more rights to people is asserting opinions on/forcing anyone. Wouldn't it be: mothers should be able to make decisions about themselves -> gay people should be able to make decisions about themselves (to engage in a homosexual relationship, for example)?
In any case, I signed it and hopefully the petition will help.
I was thinking along these lines:
Mother makes a choice about, "herself," (including the baby, as part of her, not a seperate victim). No old, white guy sitting up in congress can tell her what to do! It'a her life!
Uganda makes a choice about themselves (the people in it, being part of the county). Who are we to tell them to abide by our morals?
On May 11 2011 03:18 trackd00r wrote: I signed the petition. But honestly, I don't think that a non-government organization will be able to stop this
You'd be surprised. NGOs get their pressure and effect by influencing politicians of various countries in which they have support, and through those channels they can make their effect be felt.
As far as I know and read, they don't give death penalty for being gay. What I found said they give it for having gay sex when being ill for AIDS, or having an homo intercourse with an underaged person. Can you link me to sources claim that Uganda bill plans death penalty for being gay?
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
As others have pointed out, human rights trump the democratic rights of nations. Most countries support the use of military intervention to prevent genocide. This situation is no different.
On May 11 2011 03:22 ZerGuy wrote: As far as I know and read, they don't give death penalty for being gay. What I found said they give it for having gay sex when being ill for AIDS, or having an homo intercourse with an underaged person. Can you link me to sources claim that Uganda bill plans death penalty for being gay?
2. The offence of homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-
(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;
(e) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
Presumably a "serial offender" is somebody who has sex with people of the same gender multiple times, which is going to be true for any gay person with an active sex life. Even if it's just once, you're imprisoned for life, which isn't much better.
On May 11 2011 03:21 TALegion wrote: I was thinking along these lines:
Mother makes a choice about, "herself," (including the baby, as part of her, not a seperate victim). No old, white guy sitting up in congress can tell her what to do! It'a her life!
Uganda makes a choice about themselves (the people in it, being part of the county). Who are we to tell them to abide by our morals?
As you said. Uganda isn't a single person. Its a large group of people who are capable of different opinions. In this case, some have decided the right thing to do is to tell the others how to behave or face punishment. To me, this is the same the old white guy telling the mother what to do, which you said isn't right. Just because they are in another country doesn't mean they can do that anymore than we can, unless you have double standards.
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
On May 11 2011 03:08 BillClinton wrote: couldnt be meant more ironically, thought it was clear
It was completely unclear until I looked at your posting history, after having a few double takes >< Should at least throw in a spoiler clarifying irony given such a polemic statement >_>
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
You're right, when it comes down to my phrasing, there is subjectivity involved. I hope you get the general idea of what I'm trying to say though - that there is an optimal set of ethics and morals for society.
To be objective, moral facts must be evaluated scientifically. I think the question of "what is good" can be answered by neuroscience, psychology, and other scientific fields
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
You're right, when it comes down to my phrasing, there is subjectivity involved. I hope you get the general idea of what I'm trying to say though - that there is an optimal set of ethics and morals for society.
To be objective, moral facts must be evaluated scientifically. I think the question of "what is good" can be answered by neuroscience, psychology, and other scientific fields
You'll notice that Mr. Harris never derives his moral values from science, he never objectively arrives at a moral statement. What he does is use science to evaluate moral claims that are already in play. He has already decided "what is good," he's just advocating using objective methods to decide just how good.
Can you explain how, for instance, neuroscience might answer the question of "what is good"? Or how one might use the scientific method to discover an optimal set of ethics and morals?
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
For better or worse that's how human rights and the morality of Enlightenment works. The United States Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." not "We find the following statements have been gaining popularity in recent years in our culture."
Of course different cultures have different moral codes. It just happens that our moral code includes the rule that we should expect everyone else to follow it (at least the part about respecting basic human rights). Every moral relativist should appreciate this and let us try to force our own, superior morality on others.
And no, I don't mean this sarcastically, I do this respecting basic human rights is morally superior to ignoring them.
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
That part of the bill I'll fully support. That covers rape, molestation, sex with people who may not be able to say no. Read ones who may be deaf unable to speak and blind. and finally scum bags who don't tell the other person they are HIV positive.
That part of the bill should be applied to everyone straight and gay. Right now pedos get slap on the wrist sentences ten years in prison and their name on the sex offender list for ten years.
Seriously that's a joke. The only part that works is that fact that others in the neighborhood vilify that person.
EPT
