|
On November 24 2012 22:23 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 21:23 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 21:20 shadymmj wrote:On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved. You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion. Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes. Morality exists independently of legality. You've confused the two. I'm not denying the existence of a law, I'm saying a law can be immoral. they're obviously connected to some degree, but okay, let's take a purist stance and call them independent my question is, so what? morality is subjective, i.e. an opinion. in itself it is worthless because it means nothing.
Ethics are not entirely subjective. Your state and mine are built around them. Our democracies are built on them. When Uganda "lacks" a developed ethics (in whatever direction they want), it doesn't mean their democracy has as solid a foundation as ours.
|
On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution.
The way I see it, your design is based on fear. Fear of the slippery slope, for instance.
|
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.
Note that I haven't said a word about how I personally feel about anti-homosexual laws. His analogy of this to the holocaust highlights my argument perfectly - you can't change the mentality and the beliefs of a nation unless you're willing to go to the absolute extreme, and essentially force an entire population into your point of view.
The original poster was entirely correct, if not quite clear. Nations wagging their fingers at one another over their cultural and societal beliefs is completely fruitless, and does more to divide your cultures than fix issues. Even if you forced Uganda to not pass this law, it does nothing to actual change the anti-homosexual attitudes of the nation.
Much as it might suck to watch bad things happen around the world, issues like this won't stop happening until their society develops further, which won't happen because of economic/trade sanctions and scolding.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 25 2012 02:14 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution. The way I see it, your design is based on fear. Fear of the slippery slope, for instance.
It's also, if I may be frank, based on ignorance. While we outlaw pedophilia and bestiality because of the moral wrongness we attribute them the same as some people see homosexuality, there also a clear violation of another law - consent. Children and animals can't consent, thus arguing the slippery slope that once we allows gays to marry than there's no reason not to allow the rest is just stupid unless gay marriage somehow changes consent laws.
|
On November 25 2012 02:37 WolfintheSheep 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. Much as it might suck to watch bad things happen around the world, issues like this won't stop happening until their society develops further, which won't happen because of economic/trade sanctions and scolding.
So you agree that a thing being discussed is a "bad thing", but we should not speak against it (that is all we do in this thread) because we can't influence it in any way?
|
On November 25 2012 02:37 Myles wrote:
It's also, if I may be frank, based on ignorance. While we outlaw pedophilia and bestiality because of the moral wrongness we attribute them the same as some people see homosexuality, there also a clear violation of another law - consent. Children and animals can't consent, thus arguing the slippery slope that once we allows gays to marry than there's no reason not to allow the rest is just stupid unless gay marriage somehow changes consent laws.
Bestiality and pedophilia may one day be considered normal however as well. When you say children can't consent, you're talking about pre-verbal children. The vast majority ages say 5 - 16 are fully capable of what someone trying to take advantage of them would call 'consent'. The reason we say they cannot, is because we believe they are to ignorant to fully consent. The same could be said of many adults though, quite frankly. There are in fact legal political parties in some modern nations that support those sexual deviations.
The poster above who said forcing a nation to change its laws will do nothing, is right. How many times have we seen that in the last 10 years? At least a dozen? Trying to force women's rights, women as people, equal rights for minorities, protection for certain ethnic groups in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. Doesn't work unless the people want it. I mean think about it, there is enough public support for forbidding girls from attending school and marrying them off at age 12-13 and the Taliban was able to successfully endorse this for years.
|
On November 25 2012 02:37 WolfintheSheep 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. Note that I haven't said a word about how I personally feel about anti-homosexual laws. His analogy of this to the holocaust highlights my argument perfectly - you can't change the mentality and the beliefs of a nation unless you're willing to go to the absolute extreme, and essentially force an entire population into your point of view. The original poster was entirely correct, if not quite clear. Nations wagging their fingers at one another over their cultural and societal beliefs is completely fruitless, and does more to divide your cultures than fix issues. Even if you forced Uganda to not pass this law, it does nothing to actual change the anti-homosexual attitudes of the nation. Much as it might suck to watch bad things happen around the world, issues like this won't stop happening until their society develops further, which won't happen because of economic/trade sanctions and scolding.
His analogy in no way "highlights [your] argument perfectly". There are plenty of examples of international pressure having a positive impact on social domestic issues. The impact may not be an immediate change in culture, but rather a change in policy which down the road is accompanied by a change in culture. The international pressure on South Africa, for example, contributed to end the apartheid.
|
On November 25 2012 04:24 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 02:37 Myles wrote:
It's also, if I may be frank, based on ignorance. While we outlaw pedophilia and bestiality because of the moral wrongness we attribute them the same as some people see homosexuality, there also a clear violation of another law - consent. Children and animals can't consent, thus arguing the slippery slope that once we allows gays to marry than there's no reason not to allow the rest is just stupid unless gay marriage somehow changes consent laws. Bestiality and pedophilia may one day be considered normal however as well. When you say children can't consent, you're talking about pre-verbal children. The vast majority ages say 5 - 16 are fully capable of what someone trying to take advantage of them would call 'consent'. The reason we say they cannot, is because we believe they are to ignorant to fully consent. The same could be said of many adults though, quite frankly. There are in fact legal political parties in some modern nations that support those sexual deviations. The poster above who said forcing a nation to change its laws will do nothing, is right. How many times have we seen that in the last 10 years? At least a dozen? Trying to force women's rights, women as people, equal rights for minorities, protection for certain ethnic groups in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. Doesn't work unless the people want it. I mean think about it, there is enough public support for forbidding girls from attending school and marrying them off at age 12-13 and the Taliban was able to successfully endorse this for years.
This is utterly wrong and not recognized by any legal structure in any modern nation. The predator's idea of "consent" is not important; the legal definition and precedent are. Your slippery slope doesn't even slide.
|
On the subject of pedophilia and consent:
Children may know, or think they know, what they want at the moment. However looking back I realize that back then I REALLY didn't understand anything. I remember thinking at age 14 that maybe I would be okay with having sex. I'm 21 now and thanking heaven that I didn't.
Just my two cents.
|
This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting.
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
Again it's not something I hate, just something I think we should be focusing on fixing instead of endorsing.
This is a genuine question. Why would we even answer to such ignorance? Why do we even choose to debate someone who clearly hasn't even given this a moment of true contemplation to see for himself why everything he spouts is crap. I really applaud people who do. I can't fucking do it.
|
On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote:
This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting.
Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears.
|
On November 25 2012 04:54 tMomiji wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote:
This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting. Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears.
Is it survival? I mean, animals will attack you (or flee) when scared. I was just thinking this the other day (unrelated to this topic), that perhaps we're forgetting how to survive since we never have to 'fight', not in the survival of the fittest sense. But is this one form of the instinct of survival? To attack our fears.
I'm usually not one to condemn instincts. Nor emotions. They can both change morality (if not complete 180 degrees, they affect your actions and morals, and can change them rapidly). Typically I'd argue they (instincts and emotions) are not inherently wrong. But when hurting others you should know why you hurt them and why it is "the only way". And depending on the severity you better be DAMN sure.
|
On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote:
No wonder its a third world country..
The fact that you're getting emotional and throwing out irrelevant personal attacks like "no wonder its a third world country xDDDD" is a sign that you're no "better" than the people pushing this bill in Uganda.
First world countries have more people who hate homosexuals than those who don't. Did you know that? Oh look your logic just got destroyed.
|
On November 25 2012 04:57 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 04:54 tMomiji wrote:On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote:
This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting. Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears. Is it survival? I mean, animals will attack you (or flee) when scared. I was just thinking this the other day (unrelated to this topic), that perhaps we're forgetting how to survive since we never have to 'fight', not in the survival of the fittest sense. But is this one form of the instinct of survival? To attack our fears. I'm usually not one to condemn instincts. Nor emotions. They can both change morality (if not complete 180 degrees, they affect your actions and morals, and can change them rapidly). Typically I'd argue they (instincts and emotions) are not inherently wrong. But when hurting others you should know why you hurt them and why it is "the only way". And depending on the severity you better be DAMN sure.
Are you saying it's for their own good, then...?
|
On November 25 2012 05:52 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote:
No wonder its a third world country.. The fact that you're getting emotional and throwing out irrelevant personal attacks like "no wonder its a third world country xDDDD" is a sign that you're no "better" than the people pushing this bill in Uganda. First world countries have more people who hate homosexuals than those who don't. Did you know that? Oh look your logic just got destroyed.
Perhaps the majority of people whom you associate with are homophobes, but that does not mean that the majority of the first world hates homosexuals.
Fwiw, my opinion is that the reason that this is happening in Uganda is due to lack of education. My opinion is that our social values have advanced because our education systems did.
|
Welcome to a country run by and Islamic worldview.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 25 2012 06:11 Nightshade_ wrote:
Welcome to a country run by and Islamic worldview.
It's not an islamic country. It's a country of almost all christians. Now what do you have to say?
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 25 2012 06:11 Nightshade_ wrote:
Welcome to a country run by and Islamic worldview.
LOL. They're 85% Christian.
|
On November 25 2012 05:52 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote:
No wonder its a third world country.. The fact that you're getting emotional and throwing out irrelevant personal attacks like "no wonder its a third world country xDDDD" is a sign that you're no "better" than the people pushing this bill in Uganda. First world countries have more people who hate homosexuals than those who don't. Did you know that? Oh look your logic just got destroyed.
That's not the case for every first world country, all north-west european countries are very accepting with quite a few other european countries quite accepting.
Journal on the acceptance of homosexuality in the Netherlands and comparisons with other (mainly) european countries. (PDF - safe)
I'm not sure how the acceptance rates are in other first world countries, but I suspect Canada and Australia are around the same numbers as Netherlands/Sweden/Denmark. The USA will be alot less, around the same as Greece/Turkey. As for Asian countries such as Japan and S-Korea I have no clue, probably somewhere between Greece and Turkey. (Japan and USA are refered to in one of the tables)
|
On November 25 2012 06:02 tMomiji wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 04:57 Cutlery wrote:On November 25 2012 04:54 tMomiji wrote:On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote:
This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting. Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears. Is it survival? I mean, animals will attack you (or flee) when scared. I was just thinking this the other day (unrelated to this topic), that perhaps we're forgetting how to survive since we never have to 'fight', not in the survival of the fittest sense. But is this one form of the instinct of survival? To attack our fears. I'm usually not one to condemn instincts. Nor emotions. They can both change morality (if not complete 180 degrees, they affect your actions and morals, and can change them rapidly). Typically I'd argue they (instincts and emotions) are not inherently wrong. But when hurting others you should know why you hurt them and why it is "the only way". And depending on the severity you better be DAMN sure. Are you saying it's for their own good, then...?
No, that I'm not saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
