|
On November 24 2012 12:46 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 24 2012 12:29 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 12:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 24 2012 12:09 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 12:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 24 2012 11:41 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 24 2012 10:47 farvacola wrote:On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics. I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking. The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag. http://naturalsociety.com/medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-abortions/Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not. What exactly are you saying? Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit. My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2.... Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions. I think it is more because of two reasons: first, Christianity in the West has evolved to the point where Christians don't go out and murder people for criticizing Christianity. Second, Christianity is the dominant religion in the developed world and has shaped most of the developed world's culture, so it is familiar and an institution that people feel they can actually do something about in their own communities. True enough, didn't mean to say it was the only reason. But yes, those do seem more logical and primary.
Yours is certainly a big part of it too, the condemnatory nature of Christian antipathy to homosexuality is more Old Testament in its character than New Testament. Personally I've always that thought that if God doesn't like homosexuals, that's between homosexuals and God, and if God exists, He can and will deal with it Himself when their souls reach the pearly gates. So to me, Christians who are all about messing with the gays are acting more like the Jews of the Old Testament times (God's tools on earth to enforce God's laws) than Christians of the New (spreaders of the Word of Jesus).
|
In my view our only recourse is to economically sanction them until they forsake such a position. The simple fact is that the need for aid exceeds the supply. I do not know how we could support mass murder, even if it is voted into law. There must be suffering in places where they dont kill people for being in love or lust.
On a side note, there are a lot of tangent ideas in this thread that are basically just people being frustrated with the ubiquitous nature of the gay civil rights movement. I just hope that as you all go back through this thread and read the many posts filled with varying levels of condemnation that you understand why the gay community is still in fight mode. Vent your frustration online about gay pride parades and overzealous activists but I hope in your real lives you rest assured that even if they are not tasteful by your standards, they serve a very real life saving function.
|
On November 24 2012 12:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:29 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 12:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 24 2012 12:09 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 12:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 24 2012 11:41 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 24 2012 10:47 farvacola wrote:On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics. I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking. The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag. http://naturalsociety.com/medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-abortions/Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not. What exactly are you saying? Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit. My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2.... Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions. I think it is more because of two reasons: first, Christianity in the West has evolved to the point where Christians don't go out and murder people for criticizing Christianity. Second, Christianity is the dominant religion in the developed world and has shaped most of the developed world's culture, so it is familiar and an institution that people feel they can actually do something about in their own communities. Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:14 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 24 2012 11:59 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote:
Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide. I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people. Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge? People who aren't ignorant and who don't abuse their right to self-determination. That's who we are to judge. There is no right to self-determination for the purpose of committing crimes against humanity or war crimes, there is no right to sovereignty to do the same. That is the biggest change in international relations since the Peace of Westphalia, and it happened directly as a result of the Holocaust, although the idea was birthed several generations before that. Show nested quote +By your standards of course. Your understanding of human rights has caused suffering for millions aswell. But you refuse to understand that because you have a superiority complex. You cannot comprehend that different regions have different values and if you consider one inferior to the other to the point that you must intervene, then your own human rights house of cards collapses. Our standards are superior. You want to call it a superiority complex, fine. You want to say that actions taken because of that belief of superiority have caused suffering, they certainly have. But they are worth fighting for. Fighting causes suffering, it is unavoidable. But it is worth it if what you're fighting for is less suffering in the future. There is a gap in your reasoning; why would our human rights "house of cards" collapse if we consider behavior caused by inferior standards to be so unacceptable that we must intervene?
Because that's called imperialism, not fighting for human rights. It's only been rebranded after 1945.
There are only a handful of states that prioritise human right above their own interests, and those states don't launch wars.
|
On November 24 2012 12:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:09 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 12:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 24 2012 11:41 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 24 2012 10:47 farvacola wrote:On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics. I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking. The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag. http://naturalsociety.com/medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-abortions/Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not. What exactly are you saying? Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit. My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2.... Anyway just wondering if there are any supporters of affirmative action here and can you explain why affirmative action is not racist as it seems to advantage or disadvantage people based on their skin colour which is my book is the definition of racism?
I think personally I expect more from Christians than Muslims when it comes to respecting the living, and not kill. (Turn the other cheek etc).
Many Christians try to mix Christianity with state (law), which is why political parties, in some countries, have to take a stand against against "Christians" on certain topics. I think most "leftist" would prefer to not having the Bible as part of a political debate or standpoint. At least where I am from, the Bible and Christianity (or religion in general) rarely enter the playing field of politics (if ever). If you have certain religious views you "have" to make yourself understood outside of simply quoting the Bible, and more, to actually not rely on the Bible at all. It is typically the Christians who bring the Bible and religion (Christianity) to the table when discussing "gay politics". Therefore it is also open to "attacks" from the opposing side. Had everybody just kept the Bible off limits, and kept their views understood without using, quoting or mentioning the Bible, there would be no mention of religion in politics.
It is widely understood that Muslims let religion dictate law. But it is my belief that Christianity should not. It is expected that Christians are able to put religion aside when matters of state and humanity are in question. So this is what we expect of (most) Christians. Not of Muslims. The issues with Muslim law are far removed, although it would make sense for Belgium (at least) to look into whether or not they want to allow religion (and Islam) to enter the political scene. Religion is more personal to Christians, and not "all-encompassing" in enforcing your entire country to live exactly as you do. Hence the "free world".
I'm sure you understand; but anyone practicing Christianity should understand this and be expected to follow similar guidelines and to accept "human rights" as important within a state. And even if they can't achieve this, they should not spend resources on going against "human rights" and still expect help from organizations and the UN. IMO. And Uganda are overstepping even the "gray area" and the UN has responded on occasions.
On a more global level the UN aren't really able to enforce "human rights" all over the globe, nor would it actually be possible. With Uganda it would be feasible in this instance since they rely on us more than we rely on them. With the Arab countries there is oil (and more) to consider. And so political sanctions are more opposed and is, AFAIK, used against warring countries rather than trying to change their very old laws and customs.
It's a bit like picking your battles. No one on the "Christian" or western side 'should' want Uganda or any African country to move closer towards Islamism. I doubt race is of question.
The UN has more influence over Africa than over the middle east.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean with affirmative action and racism (where does skin colour enter?)
World politics is hypocritical, but the "leftists" can't do much more than affecting their home country, and the UN can only do so much in "enforcing" their human rights. Muslims in the western world aren't taken seriously (i.e serious opposition) if they have Muslim political views. And even tho attempts are made (including the invasion of Iraq), no one really expects the Muslim world to change, and the European democracies are very passive and won't risk conflict any time soon. So. Pick your battles.
Sorry if my response didn't exactly answer you. I feel it's better to ask "what can be done".
|
On November 24 2012 12:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:19 kwizach wrote:On November 24 2012 12:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 24 2012 11:41 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 24 2012 10:47 farvacola wrote:On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics. I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking. The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag. http://naturalsociety.com/medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-abortions/ This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?! Uhh these two "people" are highly regarded academics writing for a PEER REVIEWED journal, these are the sort of people who shape the debate - they are the "forward thinkers".If the ideas were so abhorrent why did they get published in the peer reviewed journal of medical ethics? Here's another tidbit for you, a large number of people hold these views even if they don't fully disclose them in public like the writers of the above article. *insert random stupid video*
Do you even understand how a peer-reviewed journal works? The journal you're talking about, the Journal of Medical Ethics, notably "seeks to promote ethical reflection". The views expressed by the two authors don't have to be shared by any of their peers to be published, as long as they offer a reflection on a medical & ethical topic. In this case, the views in question are very clearly not held by almost anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose. To suggest that people who believe a woman should have a right to choose believe that this should apply to newborns is not only false, it is extremely dishonest. It's as if I was to claim that anyone who doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose believes that a woman's sole function in society should be to make babies so that her companion(s) can have a progeny.
|
Because that's called imperialism, not fighting for human rights. It's only been rebranded after 1945.
There are only a handful of states that prioritise human right above their own interests, and those states don't launch wars.
No. Protecting human rights was not considered as an acceptable reason to go to war before 1939 precisely because protecting human rights in some other country wasn't seen as being particularly valuable to a country's interests. The realization, after the invasion of Poland, that Hitler really did mean everything he wrote in Mein Kampf and was intent on making it happen, changed the equation.
Intervention and war are not synonyms, and war is not the exclusive option of intervention. And what happened in 1945 and has been strengthened since is the realization that a country that brutalizes its own citizens will, sooner or later, inevitably, try to brutalize the countries around it.
|
On November 24 2012 12:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 24 2012 12:19 kwizach wrote:On November 24 2012 12:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 24 2012 11:41 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 24 2012 10:47 farvacola wrote:On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics. I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking. The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag. http://naturalsociety.com/medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-abortions/ This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?! Uhh these two "people" are highly regarded academics writing for a PEER REVIEWED journal, these are the sort of people who shape the debate - they are the "forward thinkers".If the ideas were so abhorrent why did they get published in the peer reviewed journal of medical ethics? Here's another tidbit for you, a large number of people hold these views even if they don't fully disclose them in public like the writers of the above article. *insert random stupid video* Do you even understand how a peer-reviewed journal works? The journal you're talking about, the Journal of Medical Ethics, notably "seeks to promote ethical reflection". The views expressed by the two authors don't have to be shared by any of their peers to be published, as long as they offer a reflection on a medical & ethical topic. In this case, the views in question are very clearly not held by almost anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose. To suggest that people who believe a woman should have a right to choose believe that this should apply to newborn is not only false, it is extremely dishonest. It's as if I was to claim that anyone who doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose believes that a woman's sole function in society should be to make babies so that her companion(s) can have a progeny.
Yeah-- you can be assured that most most most people are appalled by the idea of murdering infant children, even tho they may be pro-choice for a first trimester abortion. Ethical debate has many factors to consider. With different people presenting different views and theories. Doesn't mean they are applicable, simply that with different premises and "logics", you end up with different conclusions.
In a way, the view expressed by the paper doesn't even have to be the view of the authors. Simply their version of "truth" if the premise given is to be accepted. And so they may have "dis-proven" certain premises upon which people have attempted to build ethics. (Not that I know the specifics of this exact paper, but even (or especially) papers ask questions or partake in a debate rather than simply wanting to provide the latest findings and present them as the absolute truth.)
|
On November 24 2012 12:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 09:23 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 09:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 08:58 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 07:50 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote:
I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea. yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people. This is a pretty pathetic straw man. Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another. Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code. This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business? And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business? Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking: 1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two. 2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one. 3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago). 4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was. And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
Way to completely miss the point of his analogy. The original point of the first poster was that we should not tell Uganda how to do things as long as what they do doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of Uganda. Cheerio pointed out that according to that logic, nothing that ever goes on inside another state that doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of that state would ever be our concern, including if there was a genocide going on inside of the state in question. The example he gave, which is perfectly valid, was the extermination of Jews inside of Germany. If you hold the position that we should never mind what goes on inside a state as long as we/people outside the state aren't directly targeted by the policies of the state, how do you justify doing something about Jews getting exterminated inside of Germany?
Now, keep in mind that I'm not advocating any course of action here - I'm simply pointing out that Cheerio's analogy and argument are valid.
|
On November 24 2012 13:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 09:23 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 09:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 08:58 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 07:50 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote:
I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea. yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people. This is a pretty pathetic straw man. Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another. Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code. This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business? And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business? Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking: 1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two. 2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one. 3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago). 4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was. And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda. Way to completely miss the point of his analogy. The original point of the first poster was that we should not tell Uganda how to do things as long as what they do doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of Uganda. Cheerio pointed out that according to that logic, nothing that ever goes on inside another state that doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of that state would ever be our concern, including if there was a genocide going on inside of the state in question. The example he gave, which is perfectly valid, was the extermination of Jews inside of Germany. If you hold the position that we should never mind what goes on inside a state as long as we/people outside the state aren't directly targeted by the policies of the state, how do you justify doing something about Jews getting exterminated inside of Germany? Now, keep in mind that I'm not advocating any course of action here - I'm simply pointing out that Cheerio's analogy and argument are valid.
But the UN is about meddling and forwarding their agenda of human rights. Put in place to "guide" (maybe even police, but, well...) the world and try to decide what is "acceptable" and what can be influenced on a more international level. This is definitely the concern of the UN. Whether you/we think it's right or not, the UN was created for exactly this. Not that this means they will do anything. The UN tells "everybody" what to do. For instance they have recently had falling-outs with the US. And gotten heavily criticized by the 'Bush administration' (which was arguably a menace to international politics)
|
On November 24 2012 13:14 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 13:10 kwizach wrote:On November 24 2012 12:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 09:23 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 09:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 08:58 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 07:50 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote:
I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea. yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people. This is a pretty pathetic straw man. Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another. Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code. This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business? And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business? Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking: 1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two. 2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one. 3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago). 4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was. And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda. Way to completely miss the point of his analogy. The original point of the first poster was that we should not tell Uganda how to do things as long as what they do doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of Uganda. Cheerio pointed out that according to that logic, nothing that ever goes on inside another state that doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of that state would ever be our concern, including if there was a genocide going on inside of the state in question. The example he gave, which is perfectly valid, was the extermination of Jews inside of Germany. If you hold the position that we should never mind what goes on inside a state as long as we/people outside the state aren't directly targeted by the policies of the state, how do you justify doing something about Jews getting exterminated inside of Germany? Now, keep in mind that I'm not advocating any course of action here - I'm simply pointing out that Cheerio's analogy and argument are valid. But the UN is about meddling and forwarding their agenda of human rights. Put in place to "guide" the world and try to decide what is "acceptable" and what can be influenced on a more international level. This is definitely the concern of the UN. Whether you/we think it's right or not, the UN was created for exactly this. Not that this means they will do anything. The UN tells "everybody" what to do. For instance they have recently had falling-outs with the US. And gotten heavily criticized by the 'Bush administration' (which was arguably a menace to international politics)
I don't think you understood my post.
|
To be quite honest I do find the sexual aspects of homosexuality repulsive. Obviously they don't "eat da poopoo" but I just find it gross. As far as I'm concerned you shouldn't give a fuck what I think and love who you love and it's a fundamental right to be able to do so.
I do have a question though and this seems like a good thread to ask. I never understood why gays were so bent on getting "marriage". I don't understand why they would want to be a part of a religion that hated them, persecuted them for centuries and still treats them like shit. It's akin to Jewish people campaigning for admittance into Neo-Nazi groups imo.
Why not just let the religious have their meaningless title and allow homosexuals to get joined for life with all the benefits of marriage under a different legal name.
Gay pride parades are meh. I think they re-enforce negative stereotypes of the flaming homosexual. If you are allowed to hold a gay pride parade in the first place you obviously are not afraid of the repercussion of being persecuted in your community.
Anyways OT
I find it ironic how people foam at the mouth for homosexual rights in Africa in countries often have governments who can barely enforce anything.
Homosexuals are already persecuted in these countries and by somehow forcing the government to get rid of the laws the people will still hate homosexuals and will now hate the west for interfering.
Cutting aid to the country would just lead to shitloads of deaths from starvation/disease.
|
people need to just live and let live.
+ Show Spoiler +or live and let die. Bond style.... ok bad joke...
edit: and not pass really dumb, really useless laws. God desires mercy, not sacrifice.
|
On November 24 2012 13:22 tokicheese wrote:
To be quite honest I do find the sexual aspects of homosexuality repulsive. Obviously they don't "eat da poopoo" but I just find it gross. As far as I'm concerned you shouldn't give a fuck what I think and love who you love and it's a fundamental right to be able to do so.
I do have a question though and this seems like a good thread to ask. I never understood why gays were so bent on getting "marriage". I don't understand why they would want to be a part of a religion that hated them, persecuted them for centuries and still treats them like shit. It's akin to Jewish people campaigning for admittance into Neo-Nazi groups imo.
Why not just let the religious have their meaningless title and allow homosexuals to get joined for life with all the benefits of marriage under a different legal name.
Gay pride parades are meh. I think they re-enforce negative stereotypes of the flaming homosexual. If you are allowed to hold a gay pride parade in the first place you obviously are not afraid of the repercussion of being persecuted in your community.
Anyways OT
I find it ironic how people foam at the mouth for homosexual rights in Africa in countries often have governments who can barely enforce anything.
Homosexuals are already persecuted in these countries and by somehow forcing the government to get rid of the laws the people will still hate homosexuals and will now hate the west for interfering.
Cutting aid to the country would just lead to shitloads of deaths from starvation/disease.
Because marriage =/= religion.
|
On November 24 2012 13:22 tokicheese wrote:
To be quite honest I do find the sexual aspects of homosexuality repulsive. Obviously they don't "eat da poopoo" but I just find it gross. As far as I'm concerned you shouldn't give a fuck what I think and love who you love and it's a fundamental right to be able to do so.
I do have a question though and this seems like a good thread to ask. I never understood why gays were so bent on getting "marriage". I don't understand why they would want to be a part of a religion that hated them, persecuted them for centuries and still treats them like shit. It's akin to Jewish people campaigning for admittance into Neo-Nazi groups imo.
Why not just let the religious have their meaningless title and allow homosexuals to get joined for life with all the benefits of marriage under a different legal name.
Gay pride parades are meh. I think they re-enforce negative stereotypes of the flaming homosexual. If you are allowed to hold a gay pride parade in the first place you obviously are not afraid of the repercussion of being persecuted in your community.
Anyways OT
I find it ironic how people foam at the mouth for homosexual rights in Africa in countries often have governments who can barely enforce anything.
Homosexuals are already persecuted in these countries and by somehow forcing the government to get rid of the laws the people will still hate homosexuals and will now hate the west for interfering.
Cutting aid to the country would just lead to shitloads of deaths from starvation/disease.
I'm not sure where you get the idea marriage is from religion but it predates pretty much any known religions by a very very long time. Pretty much all of your assumptions are based on your ignorance to the subject so I'm not even going to waste my time addressing the rest.
|
On November 24 2012 13:22 tokicheese wrote:
To be quite honest I do find the sexual aspects of homosexuality repulsive. Obviously they don't "eat da poopoo" but I just find it gross. As far as I'm concerned you shouldn't give a fuck what I think and love who you love and it's a fundamental right to be able to do so.
I do have a question though and this seems like a good thread to ask. I never understood why gays were so bent on getting "marriage". I don't understand why they would want to be a part of a religion that hated them, persecuted them for centuries and still treats them like shit. It's akin to Jewish people campaigning for admittance into Neo-Nazi groups imo.
Why not just let the religious have their meaningless title and allow homosexuals to get joined for life with all the benefits of marriage under a different legal name.
Gay pride parades are meh. I think they re-enforce negative stereotypes of the flaming homosexual. If you are allowed to hold a gay pride parade in the first place you obviously are not afraid of the repercussion of being persecuted in your community.
Anyways OT
I find it ironic how people foam at the mouth for homosexual rights in Africa in countries often have governments who can barely enforce anything.
Homosexuals are already persecuted in these countries and by somehow forcing the government to get rid of the laws the people will still hate homosexuals and will now hate the west for interfering.
Cutting aid to the country would just lead to shitloads of deaths from starvation/disease.
While I cannot speak for gays, nor do I have the specifics on this subject. However I know for a fact that there's alot of countries with specific benefits for married couples. While there's alternatives to marriage in some countries, most often even that comes short of marriage on the benefits department.
May also just be a, "fuck you", towards those that hated them. Well, and probably also the capability of humans of being incredibly weird in their reasoning.
Edit: Ah, and what was said above, which is often forgotten.
|
On November 24 2012 13:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 13:14 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:10 kwizach wrote:On November 24 2012 12:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 09:23 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 09:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 08:58 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 07:50 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote:
I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea. yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people. This is a pretty pathetic straw man. Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another. Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code. This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business? And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business? Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking: 1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two. 2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one. 3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago). 4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was. And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda. Way to completely miss the point of his analogy. The original point of the first poster was that we should not tell Uganda how to do things as long as what they do doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of Uganda. Cheerio pointed out that according to that logic, nothing that ever goes on inside another state that doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of that state would ever be our concern, including if there was a genocide going on inside of the state in question. The example he gave, which is perfectly valid, was the extermination of Jews inside of Germany. If you hold the position that we should never mind what goes on inside a state as long as we/people outside the state aren't directly targeted by the policies of the state, how do you justify doing something about Jews getting exterminated inside of Germany? Now, keep in mind that I'm not advocating any course of action here - I'm simply pointing out that Cheerio's analogy and argument are valid. But the UN is about meddling and forwarding their agenda of human rights. Put in place to "guide" the world and try to decide what is "acceptable" and what can be influenced on a more international level. This is definitely the concern of the UN. Whether you/we think it's right or not, the UN was created for exactly this. Not that this means they will do anything. The UN tells "everybody" what to do. For instance they have recently had falling-outs with the US. And gotten heavily criticized by the 'Bush administration' (which was arguably a menace to international politics) I don't think you understood my post.
I think the UN is the course of action that resulted from the need of meddling before such views spread across the border. Some argued that as long as no one "outside" is affected, then they can't cry foul. .. And then Hitler invaded Europe/Russia. Hence "we" learned that the previous "passivity" is not perfect. Such extreme beliefs can't be expected to stay entirely contained and not affect other parts of the world. Cue the UN. Regardless of which "side" you're on or which course of action you're (not) advocating, this is specifically the dealings of the UN. Not Canada and its inhabitants. Using Canada as an example of who should not meddle is fine. But ignoring the UN whose job it is to meddle veils his argument and makes it seem more valid than I believe it should be. So simply including the existence of the UN and the reason for its creation is, I believe, the proper reply to the first nested quote.
But. Maybe I misunderstood. It's almost 6 am, so, whatever. I won't spin things any further.
|
On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western. The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being.
---
Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that.
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 24 2012 13:47 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western. The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that.
Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers.
|
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations.
|
Why is everyone forgetting that a constitutional democracy also entails protection of minorities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
