|
On August 02 2013 11:28 Alpino wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:21 YangJia wrote:
It's funny how voraciously people argue in support of homosexuals, claiming to be accepting of all others' ideas then BASH on people that have an opposing view. Bunch of fucking jokers. CLEARLY, we never claimed to be accepting all others' ideas. We never accepted the right to oppress.
Strange, I guess that's why the US destroyed countries in the Middle East while installing Democracy and commiting war crimes, spy on their citizens, and have military stationed in Germany, Korea, and Japan. Because they're so accepting, tolerant, and progressive.
|
That escalated quickly...
I wish people would stop misusing "burden of proof" though.
Burden of proof exists whenever you make a claim, no matter what that claim is.
If you claim all gays are born innately gay, you have burden of proof.
If you claim no gays are born innately gay, you have burden of proof.
If you claim some gays are born innately gay and some aren't born innately gay, you have burden of proof.
Substitute 'gay' for 'straight' or 'bisexual' it doesn't really matter. When you make a statement about the world, you have the burden of proof. Someone questioning/doubting the truth/falsity of a claim doesn't have any burden of proof - only someone affirming or denying the truth/falsity of a claim.
|
“An athlete of nontraditional sexual orientation isn’t banned from coming to Sochi,” Vitaly Mutko said in an interview with R-Sport, the sports newswire of state news agency RIA Novosti. “But if he goes out into the streets and starts to propagandize, then of course he will be held accountable.”
Russia is not banning homosexual people - they are merely banning people from propagandizing it.
If, lets say, I had a particular belief that you don't like (e.g. polygamy). If your country bans it, should I have the right to come in a flaunt my beliefs all over you?
People here are taking a strong stance and talking about boycotts merely because it conflicts with their own beliefs. However, if the situation were reversed (i.e. someone else has beliefs they don't support), I bet those same people talking about boycotts will say "boycotts are an overreaction".
|
Whenever people claim that homosexuality makes no "evolutionary sense", it can only make me wonder exactly how much of evolutionary theory they actually do understand. Is their knowledge and understanding of evolution so pathetically superficial as to be structurally equivalent to racial eugenics? One only wonder what such individuals would offer to explain species such as bees or ants where, although homosexuality in-itself may be absent, the vast majority of its population do not engage in reproductive acts or even reproduce at all. But we don't even have to go that far as there are plenty of researchers studying what roles homosexuals may play in an evolutionary context within anthropology and otherwise.
|
On August 02 2013 11:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:21 YangJia wrote:
It's funny how voraciously people argue in support of homosexuals, claiming to be accepting of all others' ideas then BASH on people that have an opposing view. Bunch of fucking jokers. What's even funnier is that someone equates supporting human rights / social equality with "accepting all others' ideas [even bad ones]". And what's even funnier is that someone compares discrimination against things such as sexuality, race, gender with intolerance for ideas that support violating equality and other basic human rights
In other words I don't reserve the right to disagree with you here. Thank you for your openness. After all, my sexuality is my choice but my philosophy is not.
|
On August 02 2013 11:36 YangJia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:21 YangJia wrote:
It's funny how voraciously people argue in support of homosexuals, claiming to be accepting of all others' ideas then BASH on people that have an opposing view. Bunch of fucking jokers. What's even funnier is that someone equates supporting human rights / social equality with "accepting all others' ideas [even bad ones]". And what's even funnier is that someone compares discrimination against things such as sexuality, race, gender with intolerance for ideas that support violating equality and other basic human rights In other words I don't reserve the right to disagree with you here. Thank you for your openness. After all, my sexuality is my choice but my philosophy is not.
Cop out
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On August 02 2013 11:33 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +“An athlete of nontraditional sexual orientation isn’t banned from coming to Sochi,” Vitaly Mutko said in an interview with R-Sport, the sports newswire of state news agency RIA Novosti. “But if he goes out into the streets and starts to propagandize, then of course he will be held accountable.” Russia is not banning homosexual people - they are merely banning people from propagandizing it. If, lets say, I had a particular belief that you don't like (e.g. polygamy). If your country bans it, should I have the right to come in a flaunt my beliefs all over you? People here are taking a strong stance and talking about boycotts merely because it conflicts with their own beliefs. However, if the situation were reversed (i.e. someone else has beliefs they don't support), I bet those same people talking about boycotts will say "boycotts are an overreaction".
It's such an ambiguous law though, in terms of interpretation. Does saying publicly 'It's ok to be gay' fall under its remit for example? If it does contravene the law, in actuality that's hardly creating an environment where it's comfortable to be a homosexual is it.
It's not even about what Russian society does, to me in their own time, it's whether they should be awarded such an event. I mean, apartheid was South Africa's business too, didn't stop the rest of the world making them a pariah and intervening in non-military ways to try to bring about change there.
|
On August 02 2013 11:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:36 YangJia wrote:On August 02 2013 11:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:21 YangJia wrote:
It's funny how voraciously people argue in support of homosexuals, claiming to be accepting of all others' ideas then BASH on people that have an opposing view. Bunch of fucking jokers. What's even funnier is that someone equates supporting human rights / social equality with "accepting all others' ideas [even bad ones]". And what's even funnier is that someone compares discrimination against things such as sexuality, race, gender with intolerance for ideas that support violating equality and other basic human rights In other words I don't reserve the right to disagree with you here. Thank you for your openness. After all, my sexuality is my choice but my philosophy is not. Cop out
Yet ANOTHER compelling argument. I hope you never take a philosophy class, you will certainly fail.
|
On August 02 2013 11:41 YangJia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:36 YangJia wrote:On August 02 2013 11:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:21 YangJia wrote:
It's funny how voraciously people argue in support of homosexuals, claiming to be accepting of all others' ideas then BASH on people that have an opposing view. Bunch of fucking jokers. What's even funnier is that someone equates supporting human rights / social equality with "accepting all others' ideas [even bad ones]". And what's even funnier is that someone compares discrimination against things such as sexuality, race, gender with intolerance for ideas that support violating equality and other basic human rights In other words I don't reserve the right to disagree with you here. Thank you for your openness. After all, my sexuality is my choice but my philosophy is not. Cop out Yet ANOTHER compelling argument.
Hard to make an argument when what you provide is nothing more than a copout. In fact I think the only response that fits when someone makes a copout is "copout"
On August 02 2013 11:47 YangJia wrote:
I'm quickly realizing it's a waste of breath to argue on this website. People are supportive of all reasonable (their own) ideas and bash on any opposition as if they have defined morality. Please note defining morality is an impossible task and you are therefore ignorant. My arguments are made not based on claims of my own righteousness, but of my own individuality, as yours are not. I'm not against you thinking as you wish, but I am against you forcing your opinions on others.
Many of you are clearly supreme beings that outperform the likes of Socrates and Descartes, I should not have tried to disagree with your thoroughly contemplated stances.
Lol. This is golden. Yet another copout, just more fluff.
|
On August 02 2013 11:36 YangJia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:21 YangJia wrote:
It's funny how voraciously people argue in support of homosexuals, claiming to be accepting of all others' ideas then BASH on people that have an opposing view. Bunch of fucking jokers. What's even funnier is that someone equates supporting human rights / social equality with "accepting all others' ideas [even bad ones]". And what's even funnier is that someone compares discrimination against things such as sexuality, race, gender with intolerance for ideas that support violating equality and other basic human rights In other words I don't reserve the right to disagree with you here. Thank you for your openness. After all, my sexuality is my choice but my philosophy is not.
You can be a bigot all you want. You just don't have the right to try to force that belief into any public sphere, because it's bigotry and it violates others' human rights.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On August 02 2013 11:41 YangJia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:36 YangJia wrote:On August 02 2013 11:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:21 YangJia wrote:
It's funny how voraciously people argue in support of homosexuals, claiming to be accepting of all others' ideas then BASH on people that have an opposing view. Bunch of fucking jokers. What's even funnier is that someone equates supporting human rights / social equality with "accepting all others' ideas [even bad ones]". And what's even funnier is that someone compares discrimination against things such as sexuality, race, gender with intolerance for ideas that support violating equality and other basic human rights In other words I don't reserve the right to disagree with you here. Thank you for your openness. After all, my sexuality is my choice but my philosophy is not. Cop out Yet ANOTHER compelling argument. I hope you never take a philosophy class, you will certainly fail.
Homosexuality isn't an 'idea', so isn't directly comparable to things such as 'a seeming distaste for homosexuality'
|
On August 02 2013 10:58 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 10:54 Mutineer wrote:On August 02 2013 10:36 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 02 2013 10:34 Mutineer wrote:
Well I have to defend the law. Law suppose to reflect will of the people, and in Russia majority of population look on Gay relationship as an illness. You may say that it is going against freedom of speech? But there are a lot of laws that do that.
I am sure you will be jailed if you do Jihad propaganda in State, Nazi propaganda in Europe. Who's talking about that necessarily? It's much more about the wisdom of the Olympics being awarded to a country with those kind of laws. It's not exclusively an issue with Russia, but about what the role of the Olympics is? So you believe Olympics should be awarded only to small subset of countries which satisfy you? BTW that law actually have a very good point. No one prove that people born gay. And we all know that we are a product of our environment. It is possible that some people gay inclined from cradle, Thought I do not see what evolution value in that. More likely people become gay as result of environment, bad luck with opposite sex, mach easy available homo relationship. And then that relationship become ingrained. We are creatures of our experience. So, law that prohibit popularization of gay relationship designed to protect yang. Tell me, at what age did you choose to be straight?
Saying that homosexuality might be socially inculcated doesn't imply that it's a choice. I wasn't born with an innate disposition to like the Beatles, but I also didn't choose to do so.
|
On August 02 2013 11:41 YangJia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:36 YangJia wrote:On August 02 2013 11:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 02 2013 11:21 YangJia wrote:
It's funny how voraciously people argue in support of homosexuals, claiming to be accepting of all others' ideas then BASH on people that have an opposing view. Bunch of fucking jokers. What's even funnier is that someone equates supporting human rights / social equality with "accepting all others' ideas [even bad ones]". And what's even funnier is that someone compares discrimination against things such as sexuality, race, gender with intolerance for ideas that support violating equality and other basic human rights In other words I don't reserve the right to disagree with you here. Thank you for your openness. After all, my sexuality is my choice but my philosophy is not. Cop out Yet ANOTHER compelling argument.
You do know instead of you two throwing a sissy fit and posting one line sarcastic love letters to each other you could just each move on and just accept your love will never mature into something greater.
On August 02 2013 11:34 koreasilver wrote:
Whenever people claim that homosexuality makes no "evolutionary sense", it can only make me wonder exactly how much of evolutionary theory they actually do understand. Is their knowledge and understanding of evolution so pathetically superficial as to be structurally equivalent to racial eugenics? One only wonder what such individuals would offer to explain species such as bees or ants where, although homosexuality in-itself may be absent, the vast majority of its population do not engage in reproductive acts or even reproduce at all. But we don't even have to go that far as there are plenty of researchers studying what roles homosexuals may play in an evolutionary context within anthropology and otherwise.
It's all just eugenics saying it doesn't make "evolutionary sense" is acting as if evolution is a person going i'm going to make dog with blue eyes today. It's a further failure when in mammals monogamy is rare and coypus sexual behavior is common including homosexuality(the sexual act). It doesn't seem to grasp how important mutation is in a species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
|
guys guys, are you overlooking the benefits of homosexuality to a straight guy?
if the increase of homosexuality is biased towards guys, then it means less competition for women
and if the increase of homosexuality is biased towards gals then it means the industry will inevitably produce more lesbian pr0n!
the end.
|
I'm quickly realizing it's a waste of breath to argue on this website. People are supportive of all reasonable (their own) ideas and bash on any opposition as if they have defined morality. Please note defining morality is an impossible task and you are therefore ignorant. My arguments are made not based on claims of my own righteousness, but of my own individuality, as yours are not. I'm not against you thinking as you wish, but I am against you forcing your opinions on others.
Many of you are clearly supreme beings that outperform the likes of Socrates and Descartes, I should not have tried to disagree with your thoroughly contemplated stances.
|
I don't remember people waving around gay pride flags at the last Olympics, and if someone did that would be pretty odd to be honest. It's like going to an F1 race and waving around a flag with "legalize marijuana" written on it. I just don't get why people would do something like that in the first place. I am not saying I support this law it's just that I don't think it should not have too much of an effect on the event unless some guy decides they need to display their political views at a fucking sporting event.
|
United Kingdom20316 Posts
If the english government said they would arrest all of the people with dark hair that went to the london olympics, they would get laughed at and the event wouldn't happen, what's the difference here?
|
On August 02 2013 10:37 YangJia wrote:
It's so popular to defend homosexuals now days, same thing with blacks and women. If someone doesn't like gay people they are a horrible person, if Trayvon Martin attacks a white man and ends up losing the white man should spend his life in prison, if feminists annoy you then you're a male chauvinist.
If the government of a country decides it doesn't want homosexuals prancing around spreading their ideas at international events guess what, that's that country's decision to make. I'm not asking anyone to be happy about it, but wanting it changed is hypocritical. You're bashing an idea in defense of idealistic freedom? Good joke.
Its not hypocritical because you're confusing two things. There are state rights and then there are human rights. People are saying that the state should have no right to make laws that prevent people from expressing their right to free speech and association. That is, the state should not have the "right" to oppress people in ways that undermine their human rights, which should be inalienable for everyone as the term implies.
Your position is almost as nonsensical as suggesting that you have a "right" to murder or injure other people just because you feel like it. No, your rights to personal liberty stop when you harm others...which is exactly the same situation as we have here except its the government that is harming people.
|
On August 02 2013 11:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 11:33 Azzur wrote:“An athlete of nontraditional sexual orientation isn’t banned from coming to Sochi,” Vitaly Mutko said in an interview with R-Sport, the sports newswire of state news agency RIA Novosti. “But if he goes out into the streets and starts to propagandize, then of course he will be held accountable.” Russia is not banning homosexual people - they are merely banning people from propagandizing it. If, lets say, I had a particular belief that you don't like (e.g. polygamy). If your country bans it, should I have the right to come in a flaunt my beliefs all over you? People here are taking a strong stance and talking about boycotts merely because it conflicts with their own beliefs. However, if the situation were reversed (i.e. someone else has beliefs they don't support), I bet those same people talking about boycotts will say "boycotts are an overreaction". It's such an ambiguous law though, in terms of interpretation. Does saying publicly 'It's ok to be gay' fall under its remit for example? If it does contravene the law, in actuality that's hardly creating an environment where it's comfortable to be a homosexual is it. It's not even about what Russian society does, to me in their own time, it's whether they should be awarded such an event. I mean, apartheid was South Africa's business too, didn't stop the rest of the world making them a pariah and intervening in non-military ways to try to bring about change there.
I'd advise you to take a look at the list of hosts of both Summer and Winter Olympics, let's say from 1936. You'll see that while the 'idea' survived into the present that the Games are a messenger of peace etc., very rarely do non-aligned countries host them. In fact the majority of the hosts have been very much involved in wars, human rights scandals and various other abuses of freedom that invalidates the point of boycott, or not allowing a certain country to host.
Remember the last boycott that was directed against the Soviet Union for their war in Afghanistan? Should the world boycott the US now?
This issue is meaningless. I'd bet the vast majority of the Russian people actually don't even care about the existence of this law, especially how hosting the Games gives rise to many more domestic problems. It's just some Western journalists jumping at the Russians again.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On August 02 2013 11:47 YangJia wrote:
I'm quickly realizing it's a waste of breath to argue on this website. People are supportive of all reasonable (their own) ideas and bash on any opposition as if they have defined morality. Please note defining morality is an impossible task and you are therefore ignorant. My arguments are made not based on claims of my own righteousness, but of my own individuality, as yours are not. I'm not against you thinking as you wish, but I am against you forcing your opinions on others.
Many of you are clearly supreme beings that outperform the likes of Socrates and Descartes, I should not have tried to disagree with your thoroughly contemplated stances.
It's not ignorance to be unable to fulfill an 'impossible task' unless you make claims that you can do so. All but an omnipotent being cannot complete such a task, and even then it's debatable.
You haven't even expressed any ideas of your own other than 'damn uppity gays, always banging on about being discriminated against'.
We are not against you having an opinion. We are against your stated viewpoint that disagreeing with your opinion is equatable to equal rights for homosexuals to live their lives. Not the same.
Don't bring up your philosophical 'credentials' again either, it's at best self-indulgent and at worst flagrant namedropping to pad out a terribly argued series of points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
