|
On August 03 2013 21:25 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +Now, coming to our particular case, can we agree, that if we were to consider "human hapiness" as a valuable metrics, it has to be the overall hapiness of the nation and not just the hapiness of a selected group of people? Thus the question is, could the Russian reasonably assume that while the prohibition of vocality about homosexuality decrease the hapiness of homosexuals, it increases the hapiness of everyone else enough that it brings net positive gain? Can we bring solid arguments that this is not the case? Or, can we somehow discredit the whole idea that the hapiness of a group is more important than that of an individual? No serious utilitarian actually takes this view, because they know what the ridiculous consequences are. By arguing that you must maximize happiness no matter what the cost, you justify slavery, genocide, murder, etc for the majority. Pretty much all philosophers who take utilitarianism seriously have some sort of provision that protects minority rights, usually by arguing that there is a sort of hierarchy of pleasure. Thus, the suffering of a human being cannot be outweighed by a few moments of pleasure.
Fair enough, I didn't really mean to take it into such an extreme. But as far as I understand, the Russians believe that exposure to homosexuality can casue the suffering of their children. Can this be outweighted by the pleasure of the homosexuals to express themselves? If there is argument to be had, it has to be focused at disproving this prejudice. The happiness of the homosexuals is just not enough basis in itself. My point was that this is not moral relativism, this is just being reasonable.
I personaly don't believe that exposure of childern to homosexuality is bad - basicaly because I believe that children such be, in a reasonable pace, exposed to everything there is in life, while their view fo the world is formed - adulthood is just too late and it is difficult to change ilusional patterns that are already fixed (speaking from personal experience). But what is the right objective basis to judge this?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On August 03 2013 21:32 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:25 shinosai wrote:Now, coming to our particular case, can we agree, that if we were to consider "human hapiness" as a valuable metrics, it has to be the overall hapiness of the nation and not just the hapiness of a selected group of people? Thus the question is, could the Russian reasonably assume that while the prohibition of vocality about homosexuality decrease the hapiness of homosexuals, it increases the hapiness of everyone else enough that it brings net positive gain? Can we bring solid arguments that this is not the case? Or, can we somehow discredit the whole idea that the hapiness of a group is more important than that of an individual? No serious utilitarian actually takes this view, because they know what the ridiculous consequences are. By arguing that you must maximize happiness no matter what the cost, you justify slavery, genocide, murder, etc for the majority. Pretty much all philosophers who take utilitarianism seriously have some sort of provision that protects minority rights, usually by arguing that there is a sort of hierarchy of pleasure. Thus, the suffering of a human being cannot be outweighed by a few moments of pleasure. Fair enough, I didn't really mean to take it into such an extreme. But as far as I understand, the Russians believe that exposure to homosexuality can casue the suffering of their children. Can this be outweighted by the pleasure of the homosexuals to express themselves? If there is argument to be had, it has to be focused at disproving this prejudice. The happiness of the homosexuals is just not enough basis in itself. My point was that this is not moral relativism, this is just being reasonable. I personaly don't believe that exposure of childern to homosexuality is bad - basicaly because I believe that children such be, in a reasonable pace, exposed to everything there is in life, while their view fo the world is formed - adulthood is just too late and it is difficult to change ilusional patterns that are already fixed (speaking from personal experience). But what is the right objective basis to judge this?
Can you really call homosexuals being themselves "pleasure"? That doesn't sound right at all.
|
On August 03 2013 21:32 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:25 shinosai wrote:Now, coming to our particular case, can we agree, that if we were to consider "human hapiness" as a valuable metrics, it has to be the overall hapiness of the nation and not just the hapiness of a selected group of people? Thus the question is, could the Russian reasonably assume that while the prohibition of vocality about homosexuality decrease the hapiness of homosexuals, it increases the hapiness of everyone else enough that it brings net positive gain? Can we bring solid arguments that this is not the case? Or, can we somehow discredit the whole idea that the hapiness of a group is more important than that of an individual? No serious utilitarian actually takes this view, because they know what the ridiculous consequences are. By arguing that you must maximize happiness no matter what the cost, you justify slavery, genocide, murder, etc for the majority. Pretty much all philosophers who take utilitarianism seriously have some sort of provision that protects minority rights, usually by arguing that there is a sort of hierarchy of pleasure. Thus, the suffering of a human being cannot be outweighed by a few moments of pleasure. Fair enough, I didn't really mean to take it into such an extreme. But as far as I understand, the Russians believe that exposure to blacks can casue the suffering of their children. Can this be outweighted by the pleasure of the blacks to express themselves? If there is argument to be had, it has to be focused at disproving this prejudice. The happiness of the blacks is just not enough basis in itself. My point was that this is not moral relativism, this is just being reasonable. I personaly don't believe that exposure of childern to blacks is bad - basicaly because I believe that children such be, in a reasonable pace, exposed to everything there is in life, while their view fo the world is formed - adulthood is just too late and it is difficult to change ilusional patterns that are already fixed (speaking from personal experience). But what is the right objective basis to judge this?
The right objective to base this one is that human rights are not up for the whim of the majority. And human suffering always outweighs small amounts of pleasure for the majority.
|
On August 03 2013 21:28 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:05 marvellosity wrote:
Can't tell if srs
Is this your first time debating on an online forum? I'm still trying to search through the posts for where they 'claimed to speak for all of humanity.' The closest thing I could find was someone mentioning a human heart.
Yes, below is his post:
On August 03 2013 12:22 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 08:20 Wolfstan wrote:
As dumb as it sounds I think we should let Russia do what it will with it's own laws and culture. Prime Directive and all, Russia as a sovereign state will end up where it needs to end up. The world needs all sorts of different social and economic ways of doing things to find the best way forward for humanity. From the capitalist plutocracy of the US, to the social democracy of France, theocracies of the Middle East, one-party communist China we are all experimenting to find the best way. do you honestly believe this in your heart as a human being.
are you saying we should try out oppressing gay people to see if its right?
He essentially said in a nutshell, that all human beings see this Russian sovereign issue as wrong.
|
According to a news post link I saw on reddit Russia has flip flopped on the issue and has said the law will not be enforced at the event.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On August 03 2013 21:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:28 Saryph wrote:On August 03 2013 21:05 marvellosity wrote:
Can't tell if srs
Is this your first time debating on an online forum? I'm still trying to search through the posts for where they 'claimed to speak for all of humanity.' The closest thing I could find was someone mentioning a human heart. Yes, below is his post: Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 12:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 08:20 Wolfstan wrote:
As dumb as it sounds I think we should let Russia do what it will with it's own laws and culture. Prime Directive and all, Russia as a sovereign state will end up where it needs to end up. The world needs all sorts of different social and economic ways of doing things to find the best way forward for humanity. From the capitalist plutocracy of the US, to the social democracy of France, theocracies of the Middle East, one-party communist China we are all experimenting to find the best way. do you honestly believe this in your heart as a human being.
are you saying we should try out oppressing gay people to see if its right? He essentially said in a nutshell, that all human beings see this Russian sovereign issue as wrong.
Uh, no he didn't. Jog on please. Or at least talk about something relevant rather than incorrectly interpreting people's posts to nitpick semantics.
|
On August 03 2013 21:51 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 03 2013 21:28 Saryph wrote:On August 03 2013 21:05 marvellosity wrote:
Can't tell if srs
Is this your first time debating on an online forum? I'm still trying to search through the posts for where they 'claimed to speak for all of humanity.' The closest thing I could find was someone mentioning a human heart. Yes, below is his post: On August 03 2013 12:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 08:20 Wolfstan wrote:
As dumb as it sounds I think we should let Russia do what it will with it's own laws and culture. Prime Directive and all, Russia as a sovereign state will end up where it needs to end up. The world needs all sorts of different social and economic ways of doing things to find the best way forward for humanity. From the capitalist plutocracy of the US, to the social democracy of France, theocracies of the Middle East, one-party communist China we are all experimenting to find the best way. do you honestly believe this in your heart as a human being.
are you saying we should try out oppressing gay people to see if its right? He essentially said in a nutshell, that all human beings see this Russian sovereign issue as wrong. Uh, no he didn't. Jog on please. Or at least talk about something relevant rather than incorrectly interpreting people's posts to nitpick semantics.
That's up to him to clarify his intentions and interpretation.
Edit: Dear KadaverBB, I apologize for derailing this thread, based on my understanding, he spoke for humanity (which includes myself), hence the request for credentials.
Shall I start a new thread on this issue between the parties instead?
Or will PMs suffice?
|
i hope this turns into a gay pride olympics
|
On August 03 2013 21:56 MarklarMarklarr wrote:
i hope this turns into a gay pride olympics
I don't want to offend anyone, but gay pride is just as irational as ethnic or national pride. I personally reserve pride for something I obtain on my own, not something that happened without my knowledge.
|
On August 03 2013 21:55 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:51 marvellosity wrote:On August 03 2013 21:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 03 2013 21:28 Saryph wrote:On August 03 2013 21:05 marvellosity wrote:
Can't tell if srs
Is this your first time debating on an online forum? I'm still trying to search through the posts for where they 'claimed to speak for all of humanity.' The closest thing I could find was someone mentioning a human heart. Yes, below is his post: On August 03 2013 12:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 08:20 Wolfstan wrote:
As dumb as it sounds I think we should let Russia do what it will with it's own laws and culture. Prime Directive and all, Russia as a sovereign state will end up where it needs to end up. The world needs all sorts of different social and economic ways of doing things to find the best way forward for humanity. From the capitalist plutocracy of the US, to the social democracy of France, theocracies of the Middle East, one-party communist China we are all experimenting to find the best way. do you honestly believe this in your heart as a human being.
are you saying we should try out oppressing gay people to see if its right? He essentially said in a nutshell, that all human beings see this Russian sovereign issue as wrong. Uh, no he didn't. Jog on please. Or at least talk about something relevant rather than incorrectly interpreting people's posts to nitpick semantics. That's up to him to clarify his intentions and interpretation. Edit: Dear KadaverBB, I apologize for derailing this thread, based on my understanding, he spoke for humanity (which includes myself), hence the request for credentials. Shall I start a new thread on this issue between the parties instead? Or will PMs suffice?
I doubt most native English speakers would interpret his statement the way you did. No one believes that "all human beings see this Russian sovereign issue as wrong," Believing "all human beings" share any belief is going out on a limb.
And honestly, if you feel the need to go to such extremes as you have in this thread because of a fear of it having a negative impact on your life outside these forums then you should consider not visiting forums (or possibly the internet) at all. You will always find people on the internet who have various opinions, and if you have to threaten legal action against people who you (incorrectly) feel are speaking for you (or humanity in this case), then you will be occupied with nothing but that for the rest of your life.
|
On August 03 2013 22:04 Kinon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:56 MarklarMarklarr wrote:
i hope this turns into a gay pride olympics I don't want to offend anyone, but gay pride is just as irational as ethnic or national pride. I personally reserve pride for something I obtain on my own, not something that happened without my knowledge.
Gay pride exists to counteract the shame that our culture imposes upon it. Just like ethnic pride did in the civil rights movement, and continues to do so as long as oppression exists. It's not about being proud of having 'earned' something, but rather about overcoming the negative feelings that tend to come along with being a minority.
|
On August 03 2013 22:09 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:55 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 03 2013 21:51 marvellosity wrote:On August 03 2013 21:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 03 2013 21:28 Saryph wrote:On August 03 2013 21:05 marvellosity wrote:
Can't tell if srs
Is this your first time debating on an online forum? I'm still trying to search through the posts for where they 'claimed to speak for all of humanity.' The closest thing I could find was someone mentioning a human heart. Yes, below is his post: On August 03 2013 12:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 08:20 Wolfstan wrote:
As dumb as it sounds I think we should let Russia do what it will with it's own laws and culture. Prime Directive and all, Russia as a sovereign state will end up where it needs to end up. The world needs all sorts of different social and economic ways of doing things to find the best way forward for humanity. From the capitalist plutocracy of the US, to the social democracy of France, theocracies of the Middle East, one-party communist China we are all experimenting to find the best way. do you honestly believe this in your heart as a human being.
are you saying we should try out oppressing gay people to see if its right? He essentially said in a nutshell, that all human beings see this Russian sovereign issue as wrong. Uh, no he didn't. Jog on please. Or at least talk about something relevant rather than incorrectly interpreting people's posts to nitpick semantics. That's up to him to clarify his intentions and interpretation. Edit: Dear KadaverBB, I apologize for derailing this thread, based on my understanding, he spoke for humanity (which includes myself), hence the request for credentials. Shall I start a new thread on this issue between the parties instead? Or will PMs suffice? I doubt most native English speakers would interpret his statement the way you did. No one believes that "all human beings see this Russian sovereign issue as wrong," Believing "all human beings" share any belief is going out on a limb. And honestly, if you feel the need to go to such extremes as you have in this thread because of a fear of it having a negative impact on your life outside these forums then you should consider not visiting forums (or possibly the internet) at all. You will always find people on the internet who have various opinions, and if you have to threaten legal action against people who you (incorrectly) feel are speaking for you (or humanity in this case), then you will be occupied with nothing but that for the rest of your life.
Thank you for your feedback on the matter. It will be duly considered.
|
On August 02 2013 08:16 Plansix wrote:
Good luck with that Russia, I am sure the world community will respond well.
Russia has no need to give a care to anything the world community says. The west is dying and Russia is rising.
At least Putin understands that a society that promotes sterility has no future.
|
On August 03 2013 17:31 Mallard86 wrote:
So Russia doesnt want minors exposed to sexual advocacy groups. Bid deal. Im sure that if some BDSM group set up shop outside a preschool in the US the public and media would be up in arms.
Yeah, that is not what is going on.
If you want a better example similar to yours, what is actually is going on is a child accidentally seeing his parents doing something rough at night, and then asking someone "why does mommy beat daddy up at night, and then the next morning they are all fine again and seem so happy?" and the only answer you are legally allowed to give is "because they are bad people".
|
On August 03 2013 22:32 Chylo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 08:16 Plansix wrote:
Good luck with that Russia, I am sure the world community will respond well. Russia has no need to give a care to anything the world community says. The west is dying and Russia is rising. At least Putin understands that a society that promotes sterility has no future.
Nice sarcasm... He.. Hehe... Hehehe.. That's sarcasm, right?
|
There are lots of issues besides gay rights. Work has been poorly done at best. Last year 25 workers died alone. The project has been catastrophic for the local environment.
Cost overrruns and corruption are rampant. $12 billion estimate in 2007 is now over $50 billion.
A contract for the most expensive bit of the Olympics—a road connecting seaside venues with the mountains and costing nearly $9 billion—went to Russian Railways, the state rail monopoly headed by Vladimir Yakunin, a former KGB general and comrade of Mr Putin’s!
source --
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21581764-most-expensive-olympic-games-history-offer-rich-pickings-select-few-castles/print
BOYCOTT!
|
On August 03 2013 22:04 Kinon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:56 MarklarMarklarr wrote:
i hope this turns into a gay pride olympics I don't want to offend anyone, but gay pride is just as irational as ethnic or national pride. I personally reserve pride for something I obtain on my own, not something that happened without my knowledge.
Disagree. The purpose of it aims to bring awareness to inequality until there is none left. That's my understanding anyway
|
On August 03 2013 21:37 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:32 opisska wrote:On August 03 2013 21:25 shinosai wrote:Now, coming to our particular case, can we agree, that if we were to consider "human hapiness" as a valuable metrics, it has to be the overall hapiness of the nation and not just the hapiness of a selected group of people? Thus the question is, could the Russian reasonably assume that while the prohibition of vocality about homosexuality decrease the hapiness of homosexuals, it increases the hapiness of everyone else enough that it brings net positive gain? Can we bring solid arguments that this is not the case? Or, can we somehow discredit the whole idea that the hapiness of a group is more important than that of an individual? No serious utilitarian actually takes this view, because they know what the ridiculous consequences are. By arguing that you must maximize happiness no matter what the cost, you justify slavery, genocide, murder, etc for the majority. Pretty much all philosophers who take utilitarianism seriously have some sort of provision that protects minority rights, usually by arguing that there is a sort of hierarchy of pleasure. Thus, the suffering of a human being cannot be outweighed by a few moments of pleasure. Fair enough, I didn't really mean to take it into such an extreme. But as far as I understand, the Russians believe that exposure to blacks can casue the suffering of their children. Can this be outweighted by the pleasure of the blacks to express themselves? If there is argument to be had, it has to be focused at disproving this prejudice. The happiness of the blacks is just not enough basis in itself. My point was that this is not moral relativism, this is just being reasonable. I personaly don't believe that exposure of childern to blacks is bad - basicaly because I believe that children such be, in a reasonable pace, exposed to everything there is in life, while their view fo the world is formed - adulthood is just too late and it is difficult to change ilusional patterns that are already fixed (speaking from personal experience). But what is the right objective basis to judge this? The right objective to base this one is that human rights are not up for the whim of the majority. And human suffering always outweighs small amounts of pleasure for the majority.
Making an analogy between beeing black and beeing gay. Mind is blown, this is beyond stupid and borderline racism.
|
On August 04 2013 03:26 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:37 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 21:32 opisska wrote:On August 03 2013 21:25 shinosai wrote:Now, coming to our particular case, can we agree, that if we were to consider "human hapiness" as a valuable metrics, it has to be the overall hapiness of the nation and not just the hapiness of a selected group of people? Thus the question is, could the Russian reasonably assume that while the prohibition of vocality about homosexuality decrease the hapiness of homosexuals, it increases the hapiness of everyone else enough that it brings net positive gain? Can we bring solid arguments that this is not the case? Or, can we somehow discredit the whole idea that the hapiness of a group is more important than that of an individual? No serious utilitarian actually takes this view, because they know what the ridiculous consequences are. By arguing that you must maximize happiness no matter what the cost, you justify slavery, genocide, murder, etc for the majority. Pretty much all philosophers who take utilitarianism seriously have some sort of provision that protects minority rights, usually by arguing that there is a sort of hierarchy of pleasure. Thus, the suffering of a human being cannot be outweighed by a few moments of pleasure. Fair enough, I didn't really mean to take it into such an extreme. But as far as I understand, the Russians believe that exposure to blacks can casue the suffering of their children. Can this be outweighted by the pleasure of the blacks to express themselves? If there is argument to be had, it has to be focused at disproving this prejudice. The happiness of the blacks is just not enough basis in itself. My point was that this is not moral relativism, this is just being reasonable. I personaly don't believe that exposure of childern to blacks is bad - basicaly because I believe that children such be, in a reasonable pace, exposed to everything there is in life, while their view fo the world is formed - adulthood is just too late and it is difficult to change ilusional patterns that are already fixed (speaking from personal experience). But what is the right objective basis to judge this? The right objective to base this one is that human rights are not up for the whim of the majority. And human suffering always outweighs small amounts of pleasure for the majority. Making an analogy between beeing black and beeing gay. Mind is blown, this is beyond stupid and borderline racism.
Why is that?
|
On August 04 2013 03:26 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:37 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 21:32 opisska wrote:On August 03 2013 21:25 shinosai wrote:Now, coming to our particular case, can we agree, that if we were to consider "human hapiness" as a valuable metrics, it has to be the overall hapiness of the nation and not just the hapiness of a selected group of people? Thus the question is, could the Russian reasonably assume that while the prohibition of vocality about homosexuality decrease the hapiness of homosexuals, it increases the hapiness of everyone else enough that it brings net positive gain? Can we bring solid arguments that this is not the case? Or, can we somehow discredit the whole idea that the hapiness of a group is more important than that of an individual? No serious utilitarian actually takes this view, because they know what the ridiculous consequences are. By arguing that you must maximize happiness no matter what the cost, you justify slavery, genocide, murder, etc for the majority. Pretty much all philosophers who take utilitarianism seriously have some sort of provision that protects minority rights, usually by arguing that there is a sort of hierarchy of pleasure. Thus, the suffering of a human being cannot be outweighed by a few moments of pleasure. Fair enough, I didn't really mean to take it into such an extreme. But as far as I understand, the Russians believe that exposure to blacks can casue the suffering of their children. Can this be outweighted by the pleasure of the blacks to express themselves? If there is argument to be had, it has to be focused at disproving this prejudice. The happiness of the blacks is just not enough basis in itself. My point was that this is not moral relativism, this is just being reasonable. I personaly don't believe that exposure of childern to blacks is bad - basicaly because I believe that children such be, in a reasonable pace, exposed to everything there is in life, while their view fo the world is formed - adulthood is just too late and it is difficult to change ilusional patterns that are already fixed (speaking from personal experience). But what is the right objective basis to judge this? The right objective to base this one is that human rights are not up for the whim of the majority. And human suffering always outweighs small amounts of pleasure for the majority. Making an analogy between beeing black and beeing gay. Mind is blown, this is beyond stupid and borderline racism.
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery or the horse laugh[1]), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.
To respond specifically to why this analogy was made: Both blacks and gays have been subject to violence, bullying, and murder for simply existing. Both blacks and gays have experienced laws attempting to stifle their ability to marry who they choose. Both blacks and gays have suffered from legislation which allows employers to refuse to hire, fire, and harass them for no other reason than who they are. So, you tell me, why is it stupid to compare being black with being gay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
