I'm amazed there are not any major calls for boycotting these Olympics and wonder whether there could be political or even financial ramifications for the political leaders that don't denounce such measures and the companies that sponsor the broadcasts the games.
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia will enforce a new law cracking down on gay rights activism when it hosts international athletes and fans during the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, the country’s sports minister said Thursday, appearing to contradict assurances to the contrary from the International Olympic Committee.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors, and even proposing penalties for those who express these views online or in the news media. Gay pride rallies also are banned.
“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.”
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
“The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
The law specifies punishment for foreign citizens, to include fines of up to 100,000 rubles ($3,000), time in prison for up to 15 days, deportation and denial of reentry into Russia. Four Dutch citizens working on a documentary film in the northern Russian town of Murmansk were the first foreigners to be detained under the new law, although their case did not make it to court, according to RIA Novosti.
While activists and organizations supportive of gay rights have called for a ban on Russian-made products like Stolichnaya vodka in bars across North America, they have yet to find a unified response to the Sochi games.
Just read a thing about Canada's minister of foreign affairs saying that the Olympics are irrelevant because this heinous law affects the Russians 365 days every year.
Apparently, the US, UK and Canada will try to convince Russia to change the law before the Olympics though. But I don't know what we should expect.
If olympic athletes aren't allowed to propagate the olympic spirit of equal rights for everyone, then I'm having a hard time seeing how the games can be held in Russia at all, without being insanely hypocritical. This law goes against the very foundation of the olympic games. Although the law is disgusting, considering the games is in less then a year, no way they gonna change host nation by now. Also it would be too much of a political stand for IOC to change.
On August 02 2013 06:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'm amazed there are not any major calls for boycotting these Olympics and wonder whether there could be political or even financial ramifications for the political leaders that don't denounce such measures and the companies that sponsor the broadcasts the games.
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia will enforce a new law cracking down on gay rights activism when it hosts international athletes and fans during the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, the country’s sports minister said Thursday, appearing to contradict assurances to the contrary from the International Olympic Committee.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors, and even proposing penalties for those who express these views online or in the news media. Gay pride rallies also are banned.
“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.”
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
“The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
The law specifies punishment for foreign citizens, to include fines of up to 100,000 rubles ($3,000), time in prison for up to 15 days, deportation and denial of reentry into Russia. Four Dutch citizens working on a documentary film in the northern Russian town of Murmansk were the first foreigners to be detained under the new law, although their case did not make it to court, according to RIA Novosti.
While activists and organizations supportive of gay rights have called for a ban on Russian-made products like Stolichnaya vodka in bars across North America, they have yet to find a unified response to the Sochi games.
I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
I bet Snowden is really proud of his new home country and how much more freedom from oppression he has now then he did when he lived in the United States of Big Brother.
On topic: Boycotting the olympics never has the intent it's meant to have as you're punishing the athletes that have worked for 4 years to get tot his point and it didn't get Carter anything the last time this was attempted.
On August 02 2013 07:02 DannyJ wrote: I've still yet to understand exactly what they mean when they say "propagandize" in regards to this matter.
That's the thing, illegalizing propaganda might sound right (I mean, propaganda is bad we've learnt in school) but basically it's illegalizing the spreading of any information that is in favour of something. For instance, pretty much everything Obama has said publicly during his presidency is propaganda that sense of the word. Sure only non hetero-sexual "propaganda" is illegalized, but it's still an insanely far-reaching restriction of the freedom of speech. Of course, in the end it comes down to how russian courts interprets the law in relation to existing legislation, and things might not turn out as horrific as it sounds, but from my understanding a harmless statement like "homosexuality is good" would be illegal. That's disgusting.
This is a pretty huge deal and I really hope the U.S. and possibly other nations take a stance on this. Some of our athletes will absolutely be in danger when visiting Russia; no doubt, someone will reason that "the olympics are not about politics so we shouldn't make this a big deal." What is going on in Russia is absolutely horrible, and if things continue the way they are, I would not be surprised for homosexuality to literally be illegal (as if it isn't close enough already)
It would be funny if the athletes took this in their own hands and started running around the stadium with the LGBT flag after winning a medal... That would make my day.
It is sad that Russia has laws like these, but tbh it has nothing to do with the Olympics. We had Olympics in Beijing i 2008 and they're arguably more backwards with womens rights, censorship etc. This is a sports event and nothing else, it is not in the Olympic committees (or the participating countries) place to push their political views on the host country. If you want to visit Russia and/or participate in their events, then you should adhere to their laws.
That being said, it is a principal thing for me, and I'd much like for everyone to be able to say and preach whatever they want.
ehh knew someone who went to Russia as a transfer. Twas recounting a story while being in a group with a black woman in it.
Supposedly if you go to the city the racism isn't AS bad. If black, in cities people won't talk/acknowledge you. However, an old russian was walking up to the friend's group, walked to the black woman, spat on her chest, and walked off.
Russia's society is pretty bad. Not too surprised with what has been going on lately. Really doubt that this will hold and I am sure that this is all just a bluff though. I mean the potential of losing money is pretty damn high. iirc there are bars around the world trying to protest against buying russian vodka.
Evidently Russian leadership believes in the effectiveness of homosexual propaganda to alter one's natural sexual orientation, particularly and especially children. There isn't a national celebration of homosexuality taking place in Russia either. The reality of homosexuality is treated as almost an affliction, it would seem, upon the nation. The majority of Russian people do not approve of homosexuality. The issue of "homosexual propaganda" becomes complicated when viewed as a national security issue because of the potential for foreign infiltration and rise to power via the proliferation of such propaganda in an effort to create a power base within the country. I believe this possibility is a concern for Russian intelligence and defense agencies.
The fact that this law was ever passed in the first place is pretty terrible. I hope the Olympics shine a light on how bad it is. Also "non-traditional sexual relations" sounds really vile and hateful.
Can someone explain to me why gay people have to be proud of their sexual orientation? I'm beginning to suspect it is not the gays that are fighting for their rights but there is a group of people who simply are into protesting, they don't give a fuck if its global warming, gay rights, or political issue they just gotta protest!
In 1980 Moscow Olympics 60 or something countries boycotted the games (of cause US included) and why? because Russia went into Afghanistan.. lol? The games were still successful and no one remember the boycott after 30 years.
Maybe people should give up on trying to understand and approve the internal issues of countries they don't live in? as someone here said the majority of Russian people support this which I can definitely confirm.
People that are boycotting Stoli are stupid as hell. They are based in Luxembourg, and it has nothing to do with the russian government and their laws. Stoli has always supported the SF Gay Pride Parade as well.
On August 02 2013 08:32 QuackPocketDuck wrote: Can someone explain to me why gay people have to be proud of their sexual orientation? I'm beginning to suspect it is not the gays that are fighting for their rights but there is a group of people who simply are into protesting, they don't give a fuck if its global warming, gay rights, or political issue they just gotta protest!
In 1980 Moscow Olympics 60 or something countries boycotted the games (of cause US included) and why? because Russia went into Afghanistan.. lol? The games were still successful and no one remember the boycott after 30 years.
Maybe people should give up on trying to understand and approve the internal issues of countries they don't live in? as someone here said the majority of Russian people support this which I can definitely confirm.
Its a reaction to the negative shit that gay people have had to endure (making them feel inferior/sub-human etc) for just being gay. You turn it into something your proud of so you can rally people to your cause when your pushing for equal rights.
If gay people were just treated as normal people then there wouldn't be a "gay pride" movement at all because they wouldn't need it.
On August 02 2013 08:37 Ooshmagoosh wrote: Propaganda? I don't even know where this whole "gays are conspiring to take over world" thing comes from.
You don't understand how propaganda works then.
To clarify so people don't get the wrong impression of what I just said - they're just using the word 'propaganda' as a pretext, much like any government uses it. Whatever the real reason for this law, I highly doubt Putin, whoever else was behind it, or anyone actually thinks "gays are conspiring to take over the world".
On August 02 2013 08:45 gosublade wrote: God damn.. the gov over there are just too scared that cock is delicious so they go apeshit.. Sad fucking community.
The Olympics and the football World Cup have been so corrupted with money and become so overblown that this is what you get. It's a shame, and this is pretty rough, not as big a clusterfuck as the World Cup in Qatar.
I have sympathy for Russian homosexuals who have to put up with prejudice all the time, but this is no worse than some of the things the Chinese populace had to put up with so that their nation could get a nice showcase.
Russia is actually going to enforce the laws it has? Cmon, somebody is surprised?
Besides, boycoting is stupid, and it plays into Russia`s narrative of Evil, Vile, west, trying to teach russian children to be gays, so the russian population shrinks even futher.
Having a strong homophobia is a normall state for most countries. Look at west itself, it barely crossed the homophobia barrier 20-30ish years ago. The best thing that can is stay open, not try to put pressure and let Russian gays convince their neighbours the same way that happened in west already. Any western attempt to pressure Russia for something most russians do not support will result in resistance and even stronger entrenchment of homophobia, since it would be much easier to make a case for "homosexuality is a terrible thing west tries to install on Russia to weaken it" or "West lost the war for families and now tries to level the field" if west actually tries to pressure Russia. Without external pressure, things would develop much easier, and faster, if gays would not be under constant susspicios of being a "whore of the west, doing it`s dirty buisness".
On August 02 2013 08:51 naastyOne wrote: Russia is actually going to enforce the laws it has? Cmon, somebody is surprised?
Besides, boycoting is stupid, and it plays into Russia`s narrative of Evil, Vile, west, trying to teach russian children to be gays, so the russian population shrinks even futher.
Having a strong homophobia is a normall state for most countries. Look at west itself, it barely crossed the homophobia barrier 20-30ish years ago. The best thing that can is stay open, not try to put pressure and let Russian gays convince their neighbours the same way that happened in west already. Any western attempt to pressure Russia for something most russians do not support will result in resistance and even stronger entrenchment of homophobia, since it would be much easier to make a case for "homosexuality is a terrible thing west tries to install on Russia to weaken it" or "West lost the war for families and now tries to level the field" if west actually tries to pressure Russia. Without external pressure, things would develop much easier, and faster, if gays would not be under constant susspicios of being a "whore of the west, doing it`s dirty buisness".
Quite ironic that in the not-so-distant past during the Cold War, homosexuals in the States were often tagged with the 'commie' brush.
Wouldn't it make more sense to call for boycotting the Olympics due to issues like government censorship, prosecution of political activists and opposition leaders?
You know, the kind issues that concern and negatively affect the entirety of population in Russia, and have significantly more serious implications.
Most of my issues with the Olympics and the World Cup is that they have their own entire bureaucratic, corrupt and corporate-placating organisational apparatus around them which are nothing to do image of sporting excellence and values that they claim to value.
On August 02 2013 09:08 Talin wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to call for boycotting the Olympics due to issues like government censorship, prosecution of political activists and opposition leaders?
You know, the kind issues that concern and negatively affect the entirety of population in Russia, and have significantly more serious implications.
While it seems possible to do both at the same time, the answer to your question is still yes.
On August 02 2013 07:32 Elroi wrote: It would be funny if the athletes took this in their own hands and started running around the stadium with the LGBT flag after winning a medal... That would make my day.
I have a feeling that if nothing is changed by the time the Olympics come around at least a few will attempt to do this. What is Russia gonna do, take away their medal and arrest them in front of millions of people?
On August 02 2013 07:32 Elroi wrote: It would be funny if the athletes took this in their own hands and started running around the stadium with the LGBT flag after winning a medal... That would make my day.
I have a feeling that if nothing is changed by the time the Olympics come around at least a few will attempt to do this. What is Russia gonna do, take away their medal and arrest them in front of millions of people?
I imagine if an athlete did this, they would be stripped of their medals. Tommie Smith and John Carlos lost their medals did a black power salute in 1968 and lost their medals.
The Olympics should, ideally, not be a place for politics, and if a gay athlete chose to make it about politics, they would do so knowing full well the consequences. The Olympics is not a place to make a stand for social rights, it's an athletic competition independent of domestic politics. As much as I dislike Russia's treatment of homosexuals, turning the Olympics into a gay rights (or any social/political rights) movement or statement is something I wouldn't support. Don't turn something that is an athletic competition involving athletes from across the world, regardless of their domestic politics, into a showboat for your own cause. Hijacking the Olympics as a venue to promote gay rights, black rights, women's rights, white rights, or any other rights is not something I find particularly appropriate.
Leave your politics at home. Russia isn't banning gay athletes, and there are countries invited to the Olympics (and medal) that do equally terrible things to their minority groups at home. Boycotting the Olympics in Russia because of this, yet not boycotting Beijing in 2012 (China's human rights) or Sydney in 2004 (Australian government stealing Australian Aboriginal children) would be hypocritical.
We could come up with hundreds of equally justified reasons to boycott the Olympics when we start delving into the merits of the domestic politics of member nations.
And yes, this is a moral outrage for Russia to do this. Just in case there is any confusion over that.
On August 02 2013 07:32 Elroi wrote: It would be funny if the athletes took this in their own hands and started running around the stadium with the LGBT flag after winning a medal... That would make my day.
I have a feeling that if nothing is changed by the time the Olympics come around at least a few will attempt to do this. What is Russia gonna do, take away their medal and arrest them in front of millions of people?
Why don't you ask Sergei Magnitsky or Alexander Litvinenko what they do to people they don't like? They murder people and you're wondering if they'd go as far as arresting someone? This is bad news, but it is Russia, I can't say I'm shocked by it.
On August 02 2013 09:58 IPA wrote: ^ Trolls aren't even creative anymore.
Just another embarrassment for Putin & Co. The absurdity continues...
Someone having a different opinion than yours doesn't make them a troll.
If someone comes in and declares that the Earth is actually flat, and that scientists are actually occultists trying to convince the world to believe in demonic spheres, we'd call them a troll. Thinking that we need to have laws against homosexuality is on the same plane of stupidity.
I thought that the thread you mentioned also lead to other threads about more specific examples.
My understanding was that the thread you linked was for a general LGBT Rights and so on, and they had links to specific cases of where those rights were moving forwards or backwards.
I thought that the thread you mentioned also lead to other threads about more specific examples.
My understanding was that the thread you linked was for a general LGBT Rights and so on, and they had links to specific cases of where those rights were moving forwards or backwards.
There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
I thought that the thread you mentioned also lead to other threads about more specific examples.
My understanding was that the thread you linked was for a general LGBT Rights and so on, and they had links to specific cases of where those rights were moving forwards or backwards.
My mistake then.
I'm not on that thread much but they had links so I got confused and went with my gut.
No one is mentioning how dependent Europe is on russian oil and gas, which are cheap and not in the middle of a muslim war-zone. European countries may disagree with Russia's laws, but they won't make a problem of it.
Next to that, we also have the Syria thing... In case you forgot, Russia doesn't give a fuck what other countries think or say about their decisions. So why would they care about other countries' opinion on gays?
It's their country, who cares that they don't have the same cultural standard?
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
Yes because the group complaining isn't on the complete bottom of the world totem pole of shit means their problems aren't real or matter. People can solve more then one problem at a time.
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
The "there are worse things out there to support so stop supporting this!" argument is sickening and boring and stale.
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
Yes because the group complaining isn't on the complete bottom of the world totem pole of shit means their problems aren't real or matter. People can solve more then one problem at a time.
Yes because that's exactly what I said. I said they don't matter. Because there's no difference at all between saying they matter absolutely nothing, and saying the 24/7 media endless media spam is abhorrent and disregards far more pressing issues.
Do you people even think before you type out your angry responses?
It's their country, who cares that they don't have the same cultural standard?
Might be in their best interest to give up an irrational fear in order to gain standing in the eyes of the other powerful developed places, which could lead to better deals for Russia down the line when dealing with these other places. But maybe Russia just wants to stick with more of the 'tough guy don't listen' image for now
That is the way to go about it! No gay propaganda, no rights to those perverts! I'm very satisfied with that, why are you people supporting this whilst only the minority of you is gay?
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
The "there are worse things out there to support so stop supporting this!" argument is sickening and boring and stale.
That's not the argument he's making. He's commenting on how today's young, liberal crowd are harping on gay rights like it's the most important thing in the world, while billions of people starve and genocides are commited across the globe. Personally, I'm rather annoyed of yuppies. Kids that have never worked a day in their lives, pampered by mommy and daddy, that think they know everything about the world.
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
You're kidding right? I mean, you ARE aware of the civil rights era. Everyone was just spouting self-righteousness then too for the sake of edgy controversial politics. People are discriminated against, abused, and even murdered because of their sexual orientation.
But please, dictate which issues we should be concerned with.
On August 02 2013 10:22 RandomPlayer wrote: That is the way to go about it! No gay propaganda, no rights to those perverts! I'm very satisfied with that, why are you people supporting this whilst only the minority of you is gay?
The funny thing is that people who used to call this propaganda were exclusively bigots. Now it is just a factual description of reality.
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
The "there are worse things out there to support so stop supporting this!" argument is sickening and boring and stale.
That's not the argument he's making. He's commenting on how today's young, liberal crowd are harping on gay rights like it's the most important thing in the world, while billions of people starve and genocides are commited across the globe. Personally, I'm rather annoyed of yuppies. Kids that have never worked a day in their lives, pampered by mommy and daddy, that think they know everything about the world.
They're completely non-comparable issues.
Starvation is due to an extremely ingrained economic system, genocides are committed across the globe. Both are not ignored by 'yuppies', but people accept there's a limit to what they can fix, especially in the cases where you would have to undermine national sovereignty to fix it.
On August 02 2013 10:22 RandomPlayer wrote: That is the way to go about it! No gay propaganda, no rights to those perverts! I'm very satisfied with that, why are you people supporting this whilst only the minority of you is gay?
The funny thing is that people who used to call this propaganda were exclusively bigots. Now it is just a factual description of reality.
What exactly is "Gay propaganda"? Do they think that they will somehow magically convert kids to being gay? Its so stupid it hurts my head and its just an excuse to suppress a group they don't like.
On August 02 2013 10:22 RandomPlayer wrote: That is the way to go about it! No gay propaganda, no rights to those perverts! I'm very satisfied with that, why are you people supporting this whilst only the minority of you is gay?
yes good point why do anything good for anyone who I cant relate to?
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
The "there are worse things out there to support so stop supporting this!" argument is sickening and boring and stale.
That's not the argument he's making. He's commenting on how today's young, liberal crowd are harping on gay rights like it's the most important thing in the world, while billions of people starve and genocides are commited across the globe. Personally, I'm rather annoyed of yuppies. Kids that have never worked a day in their lives, pampered by mommy and daddy, that think they know everything about the world.
They're completely non-comparable issues.
Starvation is due to an extremely ingrained economic system, genocides are committed across the globe. Both are not ignored by 'yuppies', but people accept there's a limit to what they can fix, especially in the cases where you would have to undermine national sovereignty to fix it.
You are right, they are completely non-comparable issues, in terms of harm. Which makes the unproportional and one-sided media obsession so abhorrent.
I'm gonna leave this thread now, I won't derail the coming circle jerk any further.
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
Yes because the group complaining isn't on the complete bottom of the world totem pole of shit means their problems aren't real or matter. People can solve more then one problem at a time.
Yes because that's exactly what I said. I said they don't matter. Because there's no difference at all between saying they matter absolutely nothing, and saying the 24/7 media endless media spam is abhorrent and disregards far more pressing issues.
Do you people even think before you type out your angry responses?
Pretty sure the only anger in any of these posts are coming from you. Interesting choice to end that post with a shame sentence.
And plus it's your post in this thread, calling out this problem isn't that important we have more pressing issues, screw this thread's direction. If you have a problem with this thread start your own thread with links to problems stemming in Russia with their policies and human rights problems outside of the LBGT community.
All i pointed out is that it's how Russia treats the LBGT community is still a valid complaint and that people can work on more then one problem at a time. Saying this endless media spam disregards far more pressing issues is a matter of opinion, there are many reasons issues might not be brought up one of which is solutions to the problem and palatability to the general public. The problems with the LBGT community is far more black and white then alot of other issues there is very little gray area involved with the problem particular to Russia(not in general but where it stems in Russia)m and the solutions are clear.
On August 02 2013 10:22 RandomPlayer wrote: That is the way to go about it! No gay propaganda, no rights to those perverts! I'm very satisfied with that, why are you people supporting this whilst only the minority of you is gay?
You could ask the same thing about whites around the world who don't support anti-black discrimination. "Hey, the majority of your country is white, why are you guys supporting black equality?"
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.
On August 02 2013 09:58 IPA wrote: ^ Trolls aren't even creative anymore.
Just another embarrassment for Putin & Co. The absurdity continues...
Someone having a different opinion than yours doesn't make them a troll.
If someone comes in and declares that the Earth is actually flat, and that scientists are actually occultists trying to convince the world to believe in demonic spheres, we'd call them a troll. Thinking that we need to have laws against homosexuality is on the same plane of stupidity.
Congratulations, you've just placed thousands of years worth of history and over 90% of the world's population on the plane of stupidity because they don't agree with you. It's more like you're just used to letting off steam about this subject every now and then, and you're happy to find someone who doesn't share your opinion. Instantly proceed to call them stupid trolls.
It's their country, their laws. The article makes it very clear their goal was not to crack down on other people's rights, but rather to protect others'. It's harmless.
On August 02 2013 10:22 RandomPlayer wrote: That is the way to go about it! No gay propaganda, no rights to those perverts! I'm very satisfied with that, why are you people supporting this whilst only the minority of you is gay?
You could ask the same thing about whites around the world who don't support anti-black discrimination. "Hey, the majority of your country is white, why are you guys supporting black equality?"
The devolped Western world is "right" and "true", the rest is wrong and backwards. Get with the times man
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?
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.
On August 02 2013 09:58 IPA wrote: ^ Trolls aren't even creative anymore.
Just another embarrassment for Putin & Co. The absurdity continues...
Someone having a different opinion than yours doesn't make them a troll.
If someone comes in and declares that the Earth is actually flat, and that scientists are actually occultists trying to convince the world to believe in demonic spheres, we'd call them a troll. Thinking that we need to have laws against homosexuality is on the same plane of stupidity.
Congratulations, you've just placed thousands of years worth of history and over 90% of the world's population on the plane of stupidity because they don't agree with you. It's more like you're just used to letting off steam about this subject every now and then, and you're happy to find someone who doesn't share your opinion. Instantly proceed to call them stupid trolls.
It's their country, their laws. The article makes it very clear their goal was not to crack down on other people's rights, but rather to protect others'. It's harmless.
Once upon a time >90% of the world's population thought a massive collection of gods existed. At another point in time they all thought the world was flat. Just because years of history and a majority of people agreed with something does not make it right.
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.
On August 02 2013 10:22 RandomPlayer wrote: That is the way to go about it! No gay propaganda, no rights to those perverts! I'm very satisfied with that, why are you people supporting this whilst only the minority of you is gay?
You could ask the same thing about whites around the world who don't support anti-black discrimination. "Hey, the majority of your country is white, why are you guys supporting black equality?"
The devolped Western world is "right" and "true", the rest is wrong and backwards. Get with the times man
Cop out, lol. Another way to interpret it would be there are more educated people in 'the western world' than there are in underdeveloped places such as Kenya, where homosexuality is still viewed as death-worthy. As a result more often than not, yes, with regard to human rights and social progress the western world tends to get it right more so than the less developed parts of the world.
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.
You're wrong about that. Law and Democracy don't exist so the majority of people can rule over minorities in dictatorship fashion. Law is also their to protect minorities and to guarantee that they can express themselves freely and have the same rights as everybody else.
And what's going on in Russia is just horrible. I don't care if 90% of the Russian population is homophobic (although i hope that this isn't really the case) that doesn't mean that we should support it. In my opinion this whole thing should be canceled completely, in Russias current state it's the wrong place to hold an olympic competition.
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.
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.
The Olympics are bankrolled and sponsored by Western companies, holding the Olympics is considered something of a coup in terms of national prestige.
While ostensibly 'global' the Olympics are so entwined with Western values, that it comes with the territory.
On August 02 2013 10:22 RandomPlayer wrote: That is the way to go about it! No gay propaganda, no rights to those perverts! I'm very satisfied with that, why are you people supporting this whilst only the minority of you is gay?
You could ask the same thing about whites around the world who don't support anti-black discrimination. "Hey, the majority of your country is white, why are you guys supporting black equality?"
I didn't consider that a straight person may like gay ones, well ok then. It's just that our russian view is different on this.
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?
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.
It's weird you say Law suppose to reflect the will of the people and end it with Jihad and Nazi states. When such set ups are be damed what the people want this is what the rulers of the state want. Although Nazism like Communism was a populist movement they did not consider what the people wanted rather told them what they wanted. Plus morality transcends any state, what is truly right or wrong isn't a group vote.
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.
It's weird you say Law suppose to reflect the will of the people and end it with Jihad and Nazi states. When such set ups are be damed what the people want this is what the rulers of the state want. Although Nazism like Communism was a populist movement they did not consider what the people wanted rather told them what they wanted. Plus morality transcends any state, what is truly right or wrong isn't a group vote.
Who decides what's "truly right or wrong"? The people with the biggest guns, so the USA I guess...
No one's entitled anything in this world. You didn't choose to be born, or do anything special for it. Your mother had sex with your father, then you popped out-- same as when a bitch mates with another dog and pops out some pups.
People have different beliefs and opinions than you; just because you think you know what's "right" doesn't make it so.
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.
It's weird you say Law suppose to reflect the will of the people and end it with Jihad and Nazi states. When such set ups are be damed what the people want this is what the rulers of the state want. Although Nazism like Communism was a populist movement they did not consider what the people wanted rather told them what they wanted. Plus morality transcends any state, what is truly right or wrong isn't a group vote.
Who decides what's "truly right or wrong"? The people with the biggest guns, so the USA I guess...
No one's entitled anything in this world. You didn't choose to be born, or do anything special for it. Your mother had sex with your father, then you popped out-- same as when a bitch mates with another dog and pops out some pups.
People have different beliefs and opinions than you; just because you think you know what's "right" doesn't make it so.
It's pretty ironic that you live in a country with Constitutional protection for people that has been upheld by the Supreme Court, even in cases where simple majoritarian opinion was very much against certain groups and actions.
The States may not be a paragon of virtue, but equally it doesn't always kowtow to popular opinion.
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.
Why is the burden of proof that being homosexual is innate to said people. The law targets them if anything the burden of proof should be on that being homosexual in a choice. Else you're making a law that is wildly guessing.
And plus identical twin students that are separated at birth have proven that we aren't that much a product of our environment especially when it comes to who we are as a person, likes dislikes etc. Environment has a larger role in our standing in society though.
And if procreation is the old goal of sexual preferences why do we let sterile people marry non sterile people. Oh yes because evolution and eugenics are two different things. And largely humans don't follow normal evolution due to manipulation of stressors.
Thought I do not see what evolution value in that. More likely people become gay as result of environment
Why are people born retarded or deformed, why are some people born really short or really tall just, seeing value is irreverent when it comes to metastization of human cells forming a baby. Your understanding of modern evolutionary theory is lacking just because you use the word evolution in your argument doesn't make it logical.
Absolutely don't think athletes shouldn't go. Everyone went to Beijing which is just as bad, if not worse, in many ways.
However I think it would be awesome if some athlete who won a medal brought attention to this by bringing out "homosexual propaganda"during the award ceremony or something like that. Dare the Russians to jail the medalist, thus making them look more foolish and letting more people know about the situation.
On August 02 2013 11:10 On_Slaught wrote: Absolutely don't think athletes shouldn't go. Everyone went to Beijing which is just as bad, if not worse, in many ways.
However I think it would be awesome if some athlete who won a medal brought attention to this by bringing out "homosexual propaganda"during the award ceremony or something like that. Dare the Russians to jail the medalist, thus making them look more foolish and letting more people know about the situation.
thats why i thought bringing gay pride flags was a good idea. that would qualify as propaganda right?
On August 02 2013 11:10 On_Slaught wrote: Absolutely don't think athletes shouldn't go. Everyone went to Beijing which is just as bad, if not worse, in many ways.
However I think it would be awesome if some athlete who won a medal brought attention to this by bringing out "homosexual propaganda"during the award ceremony or something like that. Dare the Russians to jail the medalist, thus making them look more foolish and letting more people know about the situation.
Good point, even less things were allowed in China. In the end it comes down to "their country, their rules". Local customs and laws should be respected.
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.
What a cuntish human being you are.
A compelling argument indeed, go play with your duplo legos now.
On August 02 2013 10:57 RandomPlayer wrote: I didn't consider that a straight person may like gay ones, well ok then. It's just that our russian view is different on this.
I didn't consider that a white person may like black ones. Well, ok then. It's just that our southern view is different on this.
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.
What a cuntish human being you are.
A compelling argument indeed, go play with your duplo legos now.
Duplo and Lego are separate products man, same principle though.
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.
On August 02 2013 11:16 YangJia wrote: It's so popular to defend homosexuals now days, same thing with blacks and women.
Cool, huh? The more decades that pass in the US, the more educated we become and the less we tend to irrationally hate other people for different religion, race, sexuality, gender, etc.
Sounds fine to me, maybe the USA and other countries can continue to tell other countries what they can and cannot do. After all the USA is the world's police! Seems fine to me.
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.
It's weird you say Law suppose to reflect the will of the people and end it with Jihad and Nazi states. When such set ups are be damed what the people want this is what the rulers of the state want. Although Nazism like Communism was a populist movement they did not consider what the people wanted rather told them what they wanted. Plus morality transcends any state, what is truly right or wrong isn't a group vote.
Who decides what's "truly right or wrong"? The people with the biggest guns, so the USA I guess...
No one's entitled anything in this world. You didn't choose to be born, or do anything special for it. Your mother had sex with your father, then you popped out-- same as when a bitch mates with another dog and pops out some pups.
People have different beliefs and opinions than you; just because you think you know what's "right" doesn't make it so.
The idea of morality terms from how we humans treat each other to further our cohabitation; so it's not an argument made on what one person's beliefs because beliefs is not an argument it's a shouting contest, it's an exercise of empathy. Morality is suppose to be flexible and dictated by rational thought although based on a unproven premise the rationalizations stem from.
You champion the idea that "might makes right" but fail to understand why societies are formed. Societies form to delegate the idea of "might makes right" away from the individual to a 3rd party the state. Allowing for rules and understanding to be formed on levels higher then just survival and to the ideas betterment.
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
On August 02 2013 11:25 jyuj wrote: Sounds fine to me, maybe the USA and other countries can continue to tell other countries what they can and cannot do. After all the USA is the world's police! Seems fine to me.
What's the USA specifically have to do with an event that encompasses most of the world's nations?
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.
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.
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 11:21 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 11:21 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.
“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 11:21 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 11:21 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 11:21 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.
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 10:34 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 11:21 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!
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
What does philosophy have anything to do with a debate regarding basic human rights? And what do Socrates or Descartes have anything to do with this debate?At least they had the reason not to argue against the liberties of a group of people to choose their own sex partner, regardless of gender. Not to mention the irony that homosexuality was pretty much accepted in ancient Greece.
You did'nt waste your breath, you convinced everyone here that you were pretty much behind in terms of social development, which is your right...
“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.
I'd advise you to read my earlier posts in which I acknowledged this, and posited that the Olympic movement is essentially a massive, bloated sham of an organisation that is in hoc to corporate interests and has grown out of all proportion as to what it's supposed to be.
I mean, my own thoughts are more against the IOC than Russian politics.
On August 02 2013 11:53 AeroGear wrote: What does philosophy have anything to do with a debate regarding basic human rights? And what do Socrates or Descartes have anything to do with this debate?At least they had the reason not to argue against the liberties of a group of people to choose their own sex partner, regardless of gender. Not to mention the irony that homosexuality was pretty much accepted in ancient Greece.
You did'nt waste your breath, you convinced everyone here that you were pretty much behind in terms of social development, which is your right...
philosophy has nothing to do with human rights holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck can admins please make it so i cant even see teamliquid anymore as a website? GET ME OUTTA HERE
On August 02 2013 12:01 YangJia wrote: philosophy has nothing to do with human rights holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck can admins please make it so i cant even see teamliquid anymore as a website? GET ME OUTTA HERE
Just add "don't ban me for this" to the end of that nice little post and the rest will work itself out
On August 02 2013 12:01 YangJia wrote: philosophy has nothing to do with human rights holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck can admins please make it so i cant even see teamliquid anymore as a website? GET ME OUTTA HERE
On August 02 2013 12:01 YangJia wrote: philosophy has nothing to do with human rights holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck holy fuck can admins please make it so i cant even see teamliquid anymore as a website? GET ME OUTTA HERE
It's pretty apparent that that poster probably didn't construct his response well. I will have a go to approximate what I think he meant.
What does mentioning that you have read Descartes and Socrates matter to a thread where it's dealing with a modern conception of human rights, when you don't even explain the rationale behind namechecking those two philosophers, or indeed most of your opinions?
On August 02 2013 12:12 koreasilver wrote: "Socrates died for my right to engage in pseudo-dialectics"
- our most venerable YangJia, a man beyond his times
edit: a true martyr; may his name live on to the end of teamliquid
Socrates also died for memes, you know.
I just think that pressure from a bunch of other countries on a non-philosophical but useful way (like doing something instead of talking about it) will get russia to see that it's not a good idea maybe. It's not really a "deep" issuem, a lotta people dont agree with that shit and will say something regardless of philosophy and shit.
like there is just no point... the Olympics are supposed to be something amazing. It seems like there always needs to be some sort of fog around the Olympics.
Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Straight people aren't persecuted all over the world so they have no reason to hold rallies and public events to raise awareness and promote themselves.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Why is the Russian state bringing us into it?
God forbid they enforce the laws of their country.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Well straight people aren't usually bullied for being straight, I mean sometimes if you're like a super-nerd or something but usually it has nothing to do with your orientation. I dunno, I guess they dont have to rally and say they're proud of being gay, but it's understandable.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Straight people aren't pushed into suicide for being straight, aren't executed by their governments for being straight and aren't banned from talking about being straight. They have no need to hold rallies for awareness of their plight or try to shine straightness in a positive light, everybody already likes them. Can't say the same about gays, though.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Why is the Russian state bringing us into it?
God forbid they enforce the laws of their country.
Still not answering the question: why is the Russian state bringing us into the affairs of sexuality? By default the government is the one trying to drag us into this business. Those who speak out against it aren't the ones to blame.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Why is the Russian state bringing us into it?
God forbid they enforce the laws of their country.
Still not answering the question: why is the Russian state bringing us into the affairs of sexuality? By default the government is the one trying to drag us into this business. Those who speak out against it aren't the ones to blame.
That's right get the bid for an international event that will bring thousands of people from all walks of life into your country and millions more viewing it to show off how intolerant we are to different walks of life.
You all people want to dictate to Russia with your own per-concieved notions of right and wrong, you have been told by the internet that any infringement on a gay person is evil and wrong so you want to make war with Russia over it. You don't want to empathize with Russia they are "just wrong period".
In my opinion Russia is protecting the human rights of its youth actually, by stopping those with agendas to pour lots of disinfo into minds of kids and manipulating their soft minds with lots of lies. Vladimir Putin also banned 'religious offense' which is also a reaction against Islam justifying violence through 'offendedness'. Another free speech issue which is a reaction against nonsense. Nobody has the right to be violent because of speech. There are LGBT folks in Russia who are rioting in their streets over this. For their 'right' to possibly sexually mentally abuse kids.
Look I believe there is evidence that kids are able to be really screwed up at early age by sexual propaganda. Their is evidence that you can brainwash your offspring to be gay, transgender or whatever you want them to be e.g. that boy who had lesbian parents and then wanted a sex change possibly because of subtle manipulation.
Perhaps it is US who are backward, that it is Putin who is intelligent who really wants to only protect the future of his country, we may grow to recognize that, or maybe he is wrong.
However, Olympics are about cultural enrichment. Do we have the right to be able to ruin the entire games for our athletes based on hurt feelings of certain gays about something we don't fully understand? This is the Russian culture that has been decided by the majority vote. Every culture has an oddity that may be disgusting to to others including USA (*cough NSA cough) The other 90% of the world will be happy the USA banned the Olympics, they will get far more medals and money.
Boycotting is far too harsh and helps only the magnified few who use their Reddit and Tumblr to seem bigger than they are.
On August 02 2013 13:02 DeathProfessor wrote: You all people want to dictate to Russia with your own per-concieved notions of right and wrong, you have been told by the internet that any infringement on a gay person is evil and wrong so you want to make war with Russia over it. You don't want to empathize with Russia they are "just wrong period".
In my opinion Russia is protecting the human rights of its youth actually, by stopping those with agendas to pour lots of disinfo into minds of kids and manipulating their soft minds with lots of lies. Vladimir Putin also banned 'religious offense' which is also a reaction against Islam justifying violence through 'offendedness'. Another free speech issue which is a reaction against nonsense. Nobody has the right to be violent because of speech. There are LGBT folks in Russia who are rioting in their streets over this. For their 'right' to possibly sexually mentally abuse kids.
[bLook I believe there is evidence that kids are able to be really screwed up at early age by sexual propaganda. Their is evidence that you can brainwash your offspring to be gay, transgender or whatever you want them to be e.g. that boy who had lesbian parents and then wanted a sex change possibly because of subtle manipulation.
Perhaps it is US who are backward, that it is Putin who is intelligent who really wants to only protect the future of his country, we may grow to recognize that, or maybe he is wrong.
However, Olympics are about cultural enrichment. Do we have the right to be able to ruin the entire games for our athletes based on hurt feelings of certain gays about something we don't fully understand? This is the Russian culture that has been decided by the majority vote. Every culture has an oddity that may be disgusting to to others including USA (*cough NSA cough) The other 90% of the world will be happy the USA banned the Olympics, they will get far more medals and money.
Boycotting is far too harsh and helps only the magnified few who use their Reddit and Tumblr to seem bigger than they are.
[/b] Pre-conceived notions, such as your assumption why people feel as they do on the issue. Make war with Russia which has hardly been advocated?
Perhaps not, they're not fighting for a right to sexually mentally abuse kids though.
What evidence? Even if this were true, it lacks even the basic tenet of conspiracy theory wackjobbery. WHY? Even the 9/11 truthers have a proposed rationale behind why the government blew up the towers, what possible reason would there be to brainwash people to be gay?
Hurt feelings/being actively discriminated against. Same difference of course.
'Perhaps it is US who are backward, that it is Putin who is intelligent who really wants to only protect the future of his country, we may grow to recognize that, or maybe he is wrong.'
Oh wait, I've figured it out, yeah it's totally protecting the future of his country.
Russia has an early death problem with the male population. There's a big disparity in life expectancy for men and women in the society, so of course more gay people will lead to less reproduction, leading to the death of all Russia. That must be Putin's plan, it makes so much sense now! Never mind the endemic alcohol probems Russia that are a contributory factor to a massively disproportional life expectancy among Russian males, or the corruption of the country.
That has to be a troll. Comparing the US having an "oddity" in the NSA to Russia having an "oddity" in government discrimination on the level of racism
I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind the law, probably religious for these retards to stick their necks out like this. That being said it probably won't affect the athletes at all unless they go out of their way to get into trouble.
"We must make more children for mother russia!!"- Putin
It's not banning athletes for being gay, but just keeping athletes with different sexual orientations from speaking their mind while they are there. Yes this is a bit heinous in its own way, but should'nt really affect the Olympics unless they don't follow their rules.
On August 02 2013 13:34 reps)squishy wrote: Russia is going to be Russia. They are strong minded and their parents raised them right. Sexual intercourse is only for one man and one women.
Well, at least your rather close-minded views are consistent. No FFM threesomes for me
Just to make something clear, the current situation in Russia is not just of the government oppressing a group of people through laws. The police and state are also turning a blind eye to violent crimes committed against those groups of people, much the same way lynchings and other violent crimes were treated in the Jim Crow South.
Russia's homophobia has turned extremely violent and the state is ignoring it, essentially sentencing them.
On the evening May 9, a 23-year-old man in the city of Volgograd was drinking with two “friends” when he revealed that he was gay. In response, the two men savagely beat the 23-year-old, crushing his ribs, sodomizing him with beer bottles and attempting to burn him alive. They abandoned his body, only to return and smash his head in repeatedly – just in case he might have survived the first attack.
well i dont see anything wrong with it tbh...people should be mature enough to make their own choices and personal views but extending that to minors is another thing. minors are very sensitive to what they are exposed to and not that theirs anything wrong with gays and lesbians but they shouldnt expose their lifestyle to them. let the minor grow up and learn about these things naturally. this political correctness bashing is almost sicken
On August 02 2013 13:37 Jibba wrote: Just to make something clear, the current situation in Russia is not just of the government oppressing a group of people through laws. The police and state are also turning a blind eye to violent crimes committed against those groups of people, much the same way lynchings and other violent crimes were treated in the Jim Crow South.
Russia's homophobia has turned extremely violent and the state is ignoring it, essentially sentencing them.
On the evening May 9, a 23-year-old man in the city of Volgograd was drinking with two “friends” when he revealed that he was gay. In response, the two men savagely beat the 23-year-old, crushing his ribs, sodomizing him with beer bottles and attempting to burn him alive. They abandoned his body, only to return and smash his head in repeatedly – just in case he might have survived the first attack.
From what I was reading earlier it seems that acceptance of homosexuality is actually lessening rather than increasing in Russia, which is essentially the reverse of many countries in 'the West'.
Perhaps it's organic, a genuine manifestation of the country's psyche. Perhaps, (as is more likely imo) the government and the church raising the issue homosexuality to act as smokescreen for their own failings.
On August 02 2013 13:38 Yoshinaka wrote: well i dont see anything wrong with it tbh...people should be mature enough to make their own choices and personal views but extending that to minors is another thing. minors are very sensitive to what they are exposed to and not that theirs anything wrong with gays and lesbians but they shouldnt expose their lifestyle to them. let the minor grow up and learn about these things naturally. this political correctness bashing is almost sicken
So absolutely zero sexual information until they're (18-20)? Yeah, what a great generation you'll have raised.
On August 02 2013 07:32 Elroi wrote: It would be funny if the athletes took this in their own hands and started running around the stadium with the LGBT flag after winning a medal... That would make my day.
I have a feeling that if nothing is changed by the time the Olympics come around at least a few will attempt to do this. What is Russia gonna do, take away their medal and arrest them in front of millions of people?
I imagine if an athlete did this, they would be stripped of their medals. Tommie Smith and John Carlos lost their medals did a black power salute in 1968 and lost their medals.
It was reported that they did in the media, but John Carlos gave an interview stating that it was false and they were never stripped of their medals. They were removed from the US team and banned from the Olympic village.
On August 02 2013 13:34 reps)squishy wrote: Russia is going to be Russia. They are strong minded and their parents raised them right. Sexual intercourse is only for one man and one women.
Well, at least your rather close-minded views are consistent. No FFM threesomes for me
Well the girls tend to touch each. But if both are allover you
On August 02 2013 13:38 Yoshinaka wrote: well i dont see anything wrong with it tbh...people should be mature enough to make their own choices and personal views but extending that to minors is another thing. minors are very sensitive to what they are exposed to and not that theirs anything wrong with gays and lesbians but they shouldnt expose their lifestyle to them. let the minor grow up and learn about these things naturally. this political correctness bashing is almost sicken
So absolutely zero sexual information until they're (18-20)? Yeah, what a great generation you'll have raised.
so you cant have sexual education unless it covers gay sexuality as well...riiiiight
On August 02 2013 13:38 Yoshinaka wrote: well i dont see anything wrong with it tbh...people should be mature enough to make their own choices and personal views but extending that to minors is another thing. minors are very sensitive to what they are exposed to and not that theirs anything wrong with gays and lesbians but they shouldnt expose their lifestyle to them. let the minor grow up and learn about these things naturally. this political correctness bashing is almost sicken
So absolutely zero sexual information until they're (18-20)? Yeah, what a great generation you'll have raised.
so you cant have sexual education unless it covers gay sexuality as well...riiiiight
everything you wrote applies to heterosexuality.
to recap:
minors are very sensitive, they shouldn't have sexuality exposed to them, let minors grow up and learn naturally, let them make their own choices.
The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
On August 02 2013 13:34 reps)squishy wrote: Russia is going to be Russia. They are strong minded and their parents raised them right. Sexual intercourse is only for one man and one women.
Yeah because Russia knows how to raise children just asked the fucked up children they raised in their orphanages due to no understanding of basic child developmental psychology.
On August 02 2013 13:38 Yoshinaka wrote: well i dont see anything wrong with it tbh...people should be mature enough to make their own choices and personal views but extending that to minors is another thing. minors are very sensitive to what they are exposed to and not that theirs anything wrong with gays and lesbians but they shouldnt expose their lifestyle to them. let the minor grow up and learn about these things naturally. this political correctness bashing is almost sicken
So absolutely zero sexual information until they're (18-20)? Yeah, what a great generation you'll have raised.
so you cant have sexual education unless it covers gay sexuality as well...riiiiight
everything you wrote applies to heterosexuality.
to recap:
minors are very sensitive, they shouldn't have sexuality exposed to them, let minors grow up and learn naturally, let them make their own choices.
k?
Let children make their own choices; because parenting is not about influencing your child's decisions so that they don't grow up dumb as bricks and kill themselves jumping off a house with an umbrella. Children are impressionable if you don't teach them they will learn though their peers.
Do you really want information about sexuality being taught to your children by their friends, especially when it's misinformed or poor not based in fact or scientific observations.
This is how people end up thinking that a girl is suppose to bleed and tear their hymens for their first time, the hymen is flexible a little foreplay and a girl who's relaxed and ready will not need to tear their hymens, it's actually a few rare types of hymen that would need to be torn in order to be penetrated but it's very rare and that's best treated though surgery else the hymen just grows back. Ignorance is not a solution.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
It's clearly forcing it on it's people it's a Law the point of Laws are to force people into compliance. Now do all of it's citizens mind? I do not know but there is a clear minority in Russia that is trouble by the law and it's consequences.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
Minors are not all children. A teenager should be able to have the information to understand their own sexuality before becoming a legal adult.
It depends a lot on the way it is done. For example, sex ed in school is pretty useful. It helps preventing diseases and unwanted pregnancies through actually educating children.
I am pretty sure noone is talking about showing pornography (gay or not gay) to children, or anything along those lines. If you are not allowed to tell children that sometimes men like kissing other men instead of women, that is problematic.
Some ethical problems are complicated. Homosexuality is not. Being homosexual hurts no one, and has no negative impact on anyone. Beating up homosexuals does. Thus, it is obvious which one is ethically wrong, and which one is not.
yeah don't tell me about our ortodox church. Let's be honest the current government implement this shit only because there are so many people who are actively against gay, just look at all those fashist-like videos of people beaten to death on pride walks. Shame and sadness
On August 02 2013 14:15 Simberto wrote: It depends a lot on the way it is done. For example, sex ed in school is pretty useful. It helps preventing diseases and unwanted pregnancies through actually educating children.
I am pretty sure noone is talking about showing pornography (gay or not gay) to children, or anything along those lines. If you are not allowed to tell children that sometimes men like kissing other men instead of women, that is problematic.
Some ethical problems are complicated. Homosexuality is not. Being homosexual hurts no one, and has no negative impact on anyone. Beating up homosexuals does. Thus, it is obvious which one is ethically wrong, and which one is not.
Here people seem to not want to acknowledge gay people exist in sex education. Because you know firm believers of existentialism. You know Ahmadinejad says they have no gay people in Iran must be working.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
So a majority always has the right to oppress a minority even when such oppression helps ignorance and hate against a minority group. Or you simply saying the minority doesn't exist well if they don't exist then why is this a law?
To clarify on what is meant by propaganda: I heard on the news recently (can't find the same report now, but since it was in lithuanian rather than russian, can't be bothered to look for that source), that police has the right to take arrest anyone for up to 15 days, who looks to them like a homosexual.
Because by Russian logic, if you are sexual minority, you must be a pedophile.
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
So a majority always has the right to oppress a minority even when such oppression helps ignorance and hate against a minority group. Or you simply saying the minority doesn't exist well if they don't exist then why is this a law?
It's a law about spreading propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors. You assert your right to do that and anything contrary to your position is oppression of a minority group, and thereby contributing to ignorance and hate ? Please.
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
y'know at one point in time we in the US had laws that 'the majority' voted up into place that made it so blacks couldn't drink water at white-people-only water fountains. turns out the majority had it wrong, so maybe russia might consider that the direction it's going is wrong too for similar reasons
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
So a majority always has the right to oppress a minority even when such oppression helps ignorance and hate against a minority group. Or you simply saying the minority doesn't exist well if they don't exist then why is this a law?
It's a law about spreading propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors. You assert your right to do that and anything contrary to your position is oppression of a minority group, and thereby contributing to ignorance and hate ? Please.
Propaganda is in Russian terms so far to mean any existence to homosexuality as being okay this is not limited to walking up to 8 year olds and telling them about who and what homosexuals are or in classroom settings. This is all minors(includes teenagers)and the scope goes to TV etc anything and everything in the public eye, the term minors is nothing more then a blanket term in order to shut people up from acknowledge homosexuals exist outside of mocking or ridiculing them. Portraying homosexuality as being okay is forbidden under this law even if the statement is something as simple as "It's okay if you're a homosexual" is propaganda, it's a law based around hate.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
Anybody remember this? The Russian state apparatus also locked up these ladies for exposing the delicate Russian minors to such terrifying expressions of sexuality.
Oh wait, they didn't? I mean, it's not at all similar, and I agree with you that children are over-sexualised at an earlier and earlier age tbh, but it's clearly an anti-gay rather than anti-sexualisation move.
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
So a majority always has the right to oppress a minority even when such oppression helps ignorance and hate against a minority group. Or you simply saying the minority doesn't exist well if they don't exist then why is this a law?
It's a law about spreading propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors. You assert your right to do that and anything contrary to your position is oppression of a minority group, and thereby contributing to ignorance and hate ? Please.
Propaganda is in Russian terms so far to mean any existence to homosexuality as being okay this is not limited to walking up to 8 year olds and telling them about who and what homosexuals are or in classroom settings. This is all minors(includes teenagers)and the scope goes to TV etc anything and everything in the public eye, the term minors is nothing more then a blanket term in order to shut people up from acknowledge homosexuals exist outside of mocking or ridiculing them. Portraying homosexuality as being okay is forbidden under this law even if the statement is something as simple as "It's okay if you're a homosexual" is propaganda, it's a law based around hate.
'Dad, I'm gay, does that make me evil, the Orthodox Church say so?'
You're forced into telling your kid 'Yes son, you're a sinful person' because to counteract the official line and, I don't know accept your fucking child by comforting them is illegal.
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
y'know at one point in time we in the US had laws that 'the majority' voted up into place that made it so blacks couldn't drink water at white-people-only water fountains. turns out the majority had it wrong, so maybe russia might consider that the direction it's going is wrong too for similar reasons
You do realize that right and wrong are defined by the majority, and its only wrong because the majority deems it so now.
On August 02 2013 13:37 Jibba wrote: Just to make something clear, the current situation in Russia is not just of the government oppressing a group of people through laws. The police and state are also turning a blind eye to violent crimes committed against those groups of people, much the same way lynchings and other violent crimes were treated in the Jim Crow South.
Russia's homophobia has turned extremely violent and the state is ignoring it, essentially sentencing them.
On the evening May 9, a 23-year-old man in the city of Volgograd was drinking with two “friends” when he revealed that he was gay. In response, the two men savagely beat the 23-year-old, crushing his ribs, sodomizing him with beer bottles and attempting to burn him alive. They abandoned his body, only to return and smash his head in repeatedly – just in case he might have survived the first attack.
What disturbs me about Russia as I've been learning over the past 5ish years is that this kind of state sanctioned violence has been going on for some time. Some years ago there was some noise over the rising xenophobic attitude of Russians against foreigners, particularly Asians. Ultranationalist groups have been growing in Russia with very little impediment from the Russian government, regardless of what level of social violence they perpetrate so brazenly and in public. This state-sanctioned homophobia is just another part of what's been growing in Russia for years.
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
So a majority always has the right to oppress a minority even when such oppression helps ignorance and hate against a minority group. Or you simply saying the minority doesn't exist well if they don't exist then why is this a law?
It's a law about spreading propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors. You assert your right to do that and anything contrary to your position is oppression of a minority group, and thereby contributing to ignorance and hate ? Please.
What the fuck is gay propaganda? Is general awareness of the world around you propaganda? What exactly is the fear? Are children going to suddenly go gay if they find out homosexuality exists in this world? Can you connect the dots? Keep children ignorant and homophobic of homosexuals or else they'll magically invert sexually, literally implying that homosexuality is bad. It's extremely oppressive. Imagine a United States where it was against the law to mention communism (we'll conveniently call it communist propaganda!) to children.
On August 02 2013 14:06 Pr0wler wrote: Tell me a single wrong thing with that law.
Russia’s contentious law was signed by President Vladimir Putin in late June, imposing fines on individuals accused of spreading “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors
Russia is an orthodox country with very strong church. Homosexuality is not really accepted there and I don't think that this will change any time soon. But you are no one to interfere in their internal affairs. It's not like the government is forcing this on the people... Also exposing children to any kind of sexuality is wrong.
...That's exactly what they're doing.
I don't think that the majority of russians disagree with that law. Now tell me if they don't disagree, how is this forcing ?
y'know at one point in time we in the US had laws that 'the majority' voted up into place that made it so blacks couldn't drink water at white-people-only water fountains. turns out the majority had it wrong, so maybe russia might consider that the direction it's going is wrong too for similar reasons
You do realize that right and wrong are defined by the majority, and its only wrong because the majority deems it so now.
nah im pretty sure limiting the freedom of certain people relative to others based on race, gender, sexuality, etc., counts as wrong no matter what the majority of the day supports. why do people still believe in moral relativism
On August 02 2013 15:04 Shikyo wrote: What a sensationalistic thread title. Change the thread title.
agreed, maybe change it to "Russian police allow anti-gay beatings in light of new anti-gay law and subsequent pro-gay rights demonstrations"
On August 02 2013 15:12 FarmI3oy wrote: I don't care what anyone says, but since the laws starting getting passed in different states the number of bisexual men and women has increased. The whole thing has just become OK with everyone it seems. Russia hopes to thwart that.
BROSCIENCE!...
maybe it's just that with more open tolerance in the legislation concerning bisexual/gays these days, they are more ok with being more public about it. imagine you're bi/bgay and you're in a place where being gay means you're dead. you aren't as likely to let anyone know you're gay. how can you possibly conclude that reducing gay inequality *causes* people to become gay? bro science at its finest!
What a sensationalistic thread title. It's not close to accurate. It's about propaganda to children(whatever propaganda is). Not like I approve of the law either way but this title is exaggerating it greatly. I don't exactly want to watch gay rights movements while watching the olympics either. And no I don't want to watch hetero rights movements either. They aren't even banning homosexual athletes. Change the thread title.
On August 02 2013 15:04 Shikyo wrote: What a sensationalistic thread title. It's not close to accurate. It's about propaganda to children(whatever propaganda is). Not like I approve of the law either way but this title is exaggerating it greatly. I don't exactly want to watch gay rights movements while watching the olympics either. And no I don't want to watch hetero rights movements either. They aren't even banning homosexual athletes. Change the thread title.
Thread title suits the content just fine. It's a law that discriminates against gays, and Russia plans to enforce said law at Olympics. Backseat moderating unneeded.
I applaud Russia for standing up in what they believe in.
They aren't restricting gays from being in their country. Just restricting them from making publicly scenes of gayness.
I don't care what anyone says, but since the laws starting getting passed in different states the number of bisexual men and women has increased. The whole thing has just become OK with everyone it seems. Russia hopes to thwart that.
On August 02 2013 15:04 Shikyo wrote: What a sensationalistic thread title. It's not close to accurate. It's about propaganda to children(whatever propaganda is). Not like I approve of the law either way but this title is exaggerating it greatly. I don't exactly want to watch gay rights movements while watching the olympics either. And no I don't want to watch hetero rights movements either. They aren't even banning homosexual athletes. Change the thread title.
Did you even read what happened? Thread title is completely accurate. Russia is denying the LBGT Pride House from the olympics on the grounds of spreading "gay propaganda." The minor bill simply reinforces how they legally discriminate by giving them grounds to literally just call anything remotely pro-gay as propaganda compromising the security of Russia, and turning a blind eye to violence against protestors and possibly the LBGT athletes themselves.
On August 02 2013 15:12 FarmI3oy wrote: I applaud Russia for standing up in what they believe in.
They aren't restricting gays from being in their country. Just restricting them from making publicly scenes of gayness.
I don't care what anyone says, but since the laws starting getting passed in different states the number of bisexual men and women has increased. The whole thing has just become OK with everyone it seems. Russia hopes to thwart that.
What are they thwarting? What moral peril is being averted that necessitates preventing these people from expressing themselves?
As to your suggestion that, I don't know people are becoming bisexual because it's trendy or something?
On August 02 2013 15:12 FarmI3oy wrote: I applaud Russia for standing up in what they believe in.
They aren't restricting gays from being in their country. Just restricting them from making publicly scenes of gayness.
I don't care what anyone says, but since the laws starting getting passed in different states the number of bisexual men and women has increased. The whole thing has just become OK with everyone it seems. Russia hopes to thwart that.
What isn't okay about being bisexual -- and if it isn't okay, how in the world does it even affect you?
On August 02 2013 13:53 arsonist wrote: The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
Yes, what could go wrong? Teach a chapter on gay sex to class full of horny pre-teen boys complete with play-by-play video about how sexual pleasure can be gained from massaging the prostate anally.
Nothing would go wrong and the right thing to do. After all, scientists agree you can't choose your sexual orientation. I completely agree. /sarcasm
On August 02 2013 13:53 arsonist wrote: The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
Yes, what could go wrong? Teach a chapter on gay sex to class full of horny pre-teen boys complete with play-by-play video about how sexual pleasure can be gained from massaging the prostate anally.
Nothing would go wrong and the right thing to do. After all, scientists agree you can't choose your sexual orientation. I completely agree. /sarcasm
As if your posts in the balance thread weren't bad enough.
On August 02 2013 13:53 arsonist wrote: The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
Yes, what could go wrong? Teach a chapter on gay sex to class full of horny pre-teen boys complete with play-by-play video about how sexual pleasure can be gained from massaging the prostate anally.
Nothing would go wrong and the right thing to do. After all, scientists agree you can't choose your sexual orientation. I completely agree. /sarcasm
Is this really bad sarcasm? I'm confused. Who are you even arguing against, or do you always just throw up insanely ridiculous strawmen?
On August 02 2013 15:04 Shikyo wrote: What a sensationalistic thread title. It's not close to accurate. It's about propaganda to children(whatever propaganda is). Not like I approve of the law either way but this title is exaggerating it greatly. I don't exactly want to watch gay rights movements while watching the olympics either. And no I don't want to watch hetero rights movements either. They aren't even banning homosexual athletes. Change the thread title.
Did you even read what happened? Thread title is completely accurate. Russia is denying the LBGT Pride House from the olympics on the grounds of spreading "gay propaganda." The minor bill simply reinforces how they legally discriminate by giving them grounds to literally just call anything remotely pro-gay as propaganda compromising the security of Russia, and turning a blind eye to violence against protestors and possibly the LBGT athletes themselves.
And that's the crux it has nothing to do with minors the bill simply says minors to get the wording so vague enough to include everywhere not just like classrooms.What it blocks, protests anything in public this includes TV, radio print etc, being accepting of homosexuality is banned in Russia.
On August 02 2013 15:04 Shikyo wrote: What a sensationalistic thread title. It's not close to accurate. It's about propaganda to children(whatever propaganda is). Not like I approve of the law either way but this title is exaggerating it greatly. I don't exactly want to watch gay rights movements while watching the olympics either. And no I don't want to watch hetero rights movements either. They aren't even banning homosexual athletes. Change the thread title.
Did you even read what happened? Thread title is completely accurate. Russia is denying the LBGT Pride House from the olympics on the grounds of spreading "gay propaganda." The minor bill simply reinforces how they legally discriminate by giving them grounds to literally just call anything remotely pro-gay as propaganda compromising the security of Russia, and turning a blind eye to violence against protestors and possibly the LBGT athletes themselves.
And that's the crux it has nothing to do with minors the bill simply says minors to get the wording so vague enough to include everywhere not just like classrooms.What it blocks, protests anything in public this includes TV, radio print etc, being accepting of homosexuality is banned in Russia.
I mean we've been going with worse-case scenarios here, but there's not much else we can presuppose given that the law is supposedly incredibly open-ended and ill-defined.
People talking about Boycott, Remember that not so long ago, The so called "world community" rejected a boycott proposal when Hitler organised his olympics.
Rest assured, in 77 years, our political class has not grown a pair of balls. Except if it has anything to do with natural ressources.
I think that either side of this issue is arguing about completely different things which just goes to show how vague this law is. Advocates envision toddlers crawling through semen soaked gay sex clubs as their mothers clutch their pearls helpless to stop this "education". Skeptics of the law envision gay Russian teenagers committing suicide left and right because of a government conspiracy to make them feel isolated and evil.
At the end of the day the only thing I think we can all agree on is that this is a bad way to run a country.
I'm just surprised that somebody hasn't tried to use the slippery slope argument yet, because apparently acceptance for gays = paedophiles are next = people who like with giraffes will follow into accepted behaviour.
On August 02 2013 15:31 Douillos wrote: People talking about Boycott, Remember that not so long ago, The so called "world community" rejected a boycott proposal when Hitler organised his olympics.
Rest assured, in 77 years, our political class has not grown a pair of balls. Except if it has anything to do with natural ressources.
Just out of interest, I haven't really got much knowledge, but why did the international community pressurise South Africa so hard to end apartheid. Hey, it's even noticeable in Hollywood, villains in action flicks weren't Russians anymore but Sef Efricans!
Not that the international community was wrong to do so, but it seems a curious case of relatively united, non-violent pressure to enact social change precisely because it's so atypical. Anyone got any extra info?
On August 02 2013 15:37 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm just surprised that somebody hasn't tried to use the slippery slope argument yet, because apparently acceptance for gays = paedophiles are next = people who like with giraffes will follow into accepted behaviour.
It isn't used as in Soviet Russia, gays = pedophiles. Flawed thought process that apparently has spread all around ex-soviet countries.
Russia's population is deteriorating rapidly. Russias elites see homosexuality as a threat to natural growth (the question whether this view is valid is another thing). They need to boost their natural growth for several reasons, to compete with China, to sustain their meracantylic economic policies, to combat the growth of influnce of their non-white muslim caucas based part of popultion and so on. Theres also the isuue of growing influence of church in their internal policy (and Putin needs its suport). Also their general population is highly conservative and mostly support anti homosexual sentiment. On top of that its a nice issue to which they shift public focus in order to hide their icomptence and corruption.
So they have plenty of reasons for their policies, their governament actualy works in favor of what its percives as countrys best interest.
Edit:Homosexuality and natural growth: Governamnt as such (and Russia's especially) isnt concerned with Your happiness. As long as You are not rioting they dont care if You are happy or in pain. From their point of view, suffering homosexual who creates standard family and have children (as most of them did before the era of sexual emancypation) is more desirable citizen than happy homosexual with no children. As explained before they need to boost their natural growth, and this and similiar reasoning are partialy behind their actions.
On August 02 2013 13:53 arsonist wrote: The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
Yes, what could go wrong? Teach a chapter on gay sex to class full of horny pre-teen boys complete with play-by-play video about how sexual pleasure can be gained from massaging the prostate anally.
Nothing would go wrong and the right thing to do. After all, scientists agree you can't choose your sexual orientation. I completely agree. /sarcasm
Is this really bad sarcasm? I'm confused. Who are you even arguing against, or do you always just throw up insanely ridiculous strawmen?
No one. Merely pointing out the repercussions of sexual equality among the orientations. My /sarcasm was intended to address my disagreement that nothing wrong would happen. Being a victim of preteen male-on-male sexual molestation disqualifies me from any unbiased view I'm afraid.
On August 02 2013 13:53 arsonist wrote: The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
Yes, what could go wrong? Teach a chapter on gay sex to class full of horny pre-teen boys complete with play-by-play video about how sexual pleasure can be gained from massaging the prostate anally.
Nothing would go wrong and the right thing to do. After all, scientists agree you can't choose your sexual orientation. I completely agree. /sarcasm
Is this really bad sarcasm? I'm confused. Who are you even arguing against, or do you always just throw up insanely ridiculous strawmen?
No one. Merely pointing out the repercussions of sexual equality among the orientations. My /sarcasm was intended to address my disagreement that nothing wrong would happen. Being a victim of preteen male-on-male sexual molestation disqualifies me from any unbiased view I'm afraid.
Just clarifying whether or not your sarcasm was bad or the post itself with sarcasm was bad, which more importantly re-begs the questions: Who are you arguing against that is proposing children view gay pornography, and what do you hope to accomplish with an ignorant strawman that couldn't possibly be more irrelevant?
On August 02 2013 15:41 Silvanel wrote: Russia's population is deteriorating rapidly. Russias elites see homosexuality as a threat to natural growth (the question whether this view is valid is another thing). They need to boost their natural growth for several reasons, to compete with China, to sustain their meracantylic economic policies, to combat the growth of influnce of their non-white muslim caucas based part of popultion and so on. Theres also the isuue of growing influence of church in their internal policy (and Putin needs its suport). Also their general population is highly conservative and mostly support anti homosexual sentiment. On top of that its a nice issue to which they shift public focus in order to hide their icomptence and corrupotion.
So they have plenty of reasons for their policies, their governament actualy works in favor of what its percives as countrys best interest.
Edit:Homosexuality and natural growth: Governamnt as such (and Russia's especially) isnt concerned with Your happiness. As long as You are not rioting they dont care if You are happy or in pain. From their point of view, suffering homosexual who creates standard family and have children (as most of them did before the era of sexual emancypation) is more desirable citizen than happy homosexual with no children. As explained before they need to boost their natural growth, and this and similiar reasoning are partialy behind their actions.
I had jokingly proposed this earlier, you seem a bit more knowledgeable on the issue mind! How are things such as drug and alcohol abuse tackled, is it something that is a big deal over there?
Some things never change. People are still too dumb to make use of their power in a democracy correctly. At least that's what I keep telling myself. Fuck me if this is actually a reflection of what the majority of Russians want.
A "democracy", ofc. We all know Russia isn't really one anymore.
On August 02 2013 13:53 arsonist wrote: The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
Yes, what could go wrong? Teach a chapter on gay sex to class full of horny pre-teen boys complete with play-by-play video about how sexual pleasure can be gained from massaging the prostate anally.
Nothing would go wrong and the right thing to do. After all, scientists agree you can't choose your sexual orientation. I completely agree. /sarcasm
As if your posts in the balance thread weren't bad enough.
RIDICULOUS, post. My god.
Didn't Kinsey kinda prove that almost no one is 100% heterosexual or homosexual, and many will have a homosexual experience in their lifetime? I'm bisexual, and my first experience was with a guy because it was much easier.
His post was worded quite poorly, but I think there may be a grain of truth/logic in it.
On August 02 2013 15:41 Silvanel wrote: Russia's population is deteriorating rapidly. Russias elites see homosexuality as a threat to natural growth (the question whether this view is valid is another thing). They need to boost their natural growth for several reasons, to compete with China, to sustain their meracantylic economic policies, to combat the growth of influnce of their non-white muslim caucas based part of popultion and so on. Theres also the isuue of growing influence of church in their internal policy (and Putin needs its suport). Also their general population is highly conservative and mostly support anti homosexual sentiment. On top of that its a nice issue to which they shift public focus in order to hide their icomptence and corrupotion.
So they have plenty of reasons for their policies, their governament actualy works in favor of what its percives as countrys best interest.
Edit:Homosexuality and natural growth: Governamnt as such (and Russia's especially) isnt concerned with Your happiness. As long as You are not rioting they dont care if You are happy or in pain. From their point of view, suffering homosexual who creates standard family and have children (as most of them did before the era of sexual emancypation) is more desirable citizen than happy homosexual with no children. As explained before they need to boost their natural growth, and this and similiar reasoning are partialy behind their actions.
I had jokingly proposed this earlier, you seem a bit more knowledgeable on the issue mind! How are things such as drug and alcohol abuse tackled, is it something that is a big deal over there?
Well alcohol is a big problem, its greatly contributing to decrease in the productivity of their population (and shortening their life expectancy), there are some measeres enacted against it (price rises) but some poeple close to the governemnt have a lot of money invested in alcohol industry, so its kinda schizophrenic situation. There are no big anti-alcohol programs that i am aware of that might work.
In case of drugs i dont know really. I know they have problems with HIV in their heroin abusing part of population, and its hard to do anthing with it, as best means to comabat this actualy include helping those people, which is hard to do in such conservative country.
I am not some big expert in Russias internal policy. I guess we just have much more press coverage of their internal dealings because it influneces as in many ways. (We import oil and gas, and export alot to them).
PS. I dont know if people in the west are aware of it but Russia loves to punish their smaller neighbors whenever they defy their wishes. They especialy love to ban certain products (most often for "sanitary" reasons) cracking down on certain countries. Poland did something bad -lets ban their meat, (we export a looot of meat to Russia). In recent years they did similiar things to Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldavia (to name a few). Russia loves to strongarm everything. So i am kinda curious what would happen if some athlete would make pro-homosexual display during the Olympics.
On August 02 2013 13:53 arsonist wrote: The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
Yes, what could go wrong? Teach a chapter on gay sex to class full of horny pre-teen boys complete with play-by-play video about how sexual pleasure can be gained from massaging the prostate anally.
Nothing would go wrong and the right thing to do. After all, scientists agree you can't choose your sexual orientation. I completely agree. /sarcasm
As if your posts in the balance thread weren't bad enough.
RIDICULOUS, post. My god.
Didn't Kinsey kinda prove that almost no one is 100% heterosexual or homosexual, and many will have a homosexual experience in their lifetime? I'm bisexual, and my first experience was with a guy because it was much easier.
His post was worded quite poorly, but I think there may be a grain of truth/logic in it.
The kind of malleability of sexuality you are talking about does exist, especially in closed systems, be they prisons, or all-male schools or whatever.
I would contend that, just to be arbitrary if you're '95% gay', you're still gay for the most part.
It's not that I was necessarily disputing, what you raised it was the very idea that this law would prevent, or in its absence that kids would be being taught in classes about sexual mechanics in such a manner.
The spirit of this law, and the possibilities of it are directly harmful to gay people because it essentially criminalises the very support networks and acceptance that people who are homosexual rely upon, or at the very least are a source of support in a difficult stage of their lives.
Now, I'm going to annoy some people and say that, at least in terms of Belfast Pride, I went once and hated the experience, but I still would want to see it pass off every year. I don't particularly like many of the gay people I meet, but it's not because I give a shit about their sexuality. What harm can come from an annual parade and a celebration of the varied people that it constitutes?
Hell even if I hated every gay person I met, they should be allowed to live their lives in peace. It's not about me or my feelings, but a fundamental lack of any real logical reason that they shouldn't be allowed to have the fulfilling romantic relationships that the rest of us take for granted.
People seem to have a problem with homosexuality at a fundamental level that I just can't understand.
On August 02 2013 15:54 DarkLordOlli wrote: Some things never change. People are still too dumb to make use of their power in a democracy correctly. At least that's what I keep telling myself. Fuck me if this is actually a reflection of what the majority of Russians want.
A "democracy", ofc. We all know Russia isn't really one anymore.
On August 02 2013 15:41 Silvanel wrote: Russia's population is deteriorating rapidly. Russias elites see homosexuality as a threat to natural growth (the question whether this view is valid is another thing). They need to boost their natural growth for several reasons, to compete with China, to sustain their meracantylic economic policies, to combat the growth of influnce of their non-white muslim caucas based part of popultion and so on. Theres also the isuue of growing influence of church in their internal policy (and Putin needs its suport). Also their general population is highly conservative and mostly support anti homosexual sentiment. On top of that its a nice issue to which they shift public focus in order to hide their icomptence and corrupotion.
So they have plenty of reasons for their policies, their governament actualy works in favor of what its percives as countrys best interest.
Edit:Homosexuality and natural growth: Governamnt as such (and Russia's especially) isnt concerned with Your happiness. As long as You are not rioting they dont care if You are happy or in pain. From their point of view, suffering homosexual who creates standard family and have children (as most of them did before the era of sexual emancypation) is more desirable citizen than happy homosexual with no children. As explained before they need to boost their natural growth, and this and similiar reasoning are partialy behind their actions.
I had jokingly proposed this earlier, you seem a bit more knowledgeable on the issue mind! How are things such as drug and alcohol abuse tackled, is it something that is a big deal over there?
Well alcohol is a big problem, its greatly contributing to decrease in the productivity of their population (and shortening their life expectancy), there are some measeres enacted against it (price rises) but some poeple close to the governemnt have a lot of money invested in alcohol industry, so its kinda schizophrenic situation. There are no big anti-alcohol programs that i am aware of that might work.
In case of drugs i dont know really. I know they have problems with HIV in their heroin abusing part of population, and its hard to do anthing with it, as best means to comabat this actualy include helping those people, which is hard to do in such conservative country.
I am not some big expert in Russias internal policy. I guess we just have much more press coverage of their internal dealings because it influneces as in many ways. (We import oil and gas, and export alot to them).
PS. I dont know if people in the west are aware of it but Russia loves to punish their smaller neighbors whenever they defy their wishes. They especialy love to ban certain products (most often for "sanitary" reasons) cracking down on certain countries. Poland did something bad -lets ban their meat, (we export a looot of meat to Russia). In recent years they did similiar things to Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldavia (to name a few). Russia loves to strongarm everything. So i am kinda curious what would happen if some athlete would make pro-homosexual display during the Olympics.
We get very little press coverage of 'normal' Russia if that makes sense. Alexander Litvinenko dies, or Putin is pictured topless, but outside of the international relations disaster or 'Putin's an asshole' it's hard to get a picture as to what the actual country is like.
Speaking of drug problems, there's this one called Krokodil or something over there that's a big social blight. Genuinely makes heroin addiction seem a safe activity by comparison.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
It's a good quote if you don't use your brain to think on why that might be the case.
On August 02 2013 15:54 DarkLordOlli wrote: Some things never change. People are still too dumb to make use of their power in a democracy correctly. At least that's what I keep telling myself. Fuck me if this is actually a reflection of what the majority of Russians want.
A "democracy", ofc. We all know Russia isn't really one anymore.
This is almost certainly what the (vast) majority of Russians want. Sadly.
On August 02 2013 13:53 arsonist wrote: The idea that exposing children to homosexuality will make them homosexual is ridiculous, anyway. A vast majority of homosexual children are brought up by heterosexual parents, and yet, somehow, they aren't influenced to turn heterosexual.
Yes, what could go wrong? Teach a chapter on gay sex to class full of horny pre-teen boys complete with play-by-play video about how sexual pleasure can be gained from massaging the prostate anally.
Nothing would go wrong and the right thing to do. After all, scientists agree you can't choose your sexual orientation. I completely agree. /sarcasm
Is this really bad sarcasm? I'm confused. Who are you even arguing against, or do you always just throw up insanely ridiculous strawmen?
No one. Merely pointing out the repercussions of sexual equality among the orientations. My /sarcasm was intended to address my disagreement that nothing wrong would happen. Being a victim of preteen male-on-male sexual molestation disqualifies me from any unbiased view I'm afraid.
You are definitely right! Having strict rules against it will definitely stop these things from happening. I mean, just look at the catholic church. It's not like catholic priests have sex with young boys or anything.
Oh my god, the slippery slope and strawmen arguments in here, I feel pretty bad for some of you for expressing (and supposedly having) such opinions, and bad for the rest of us for having a sliver of hope that such naive and backwards attitudes and opinions can be changed.....
In any case, I'd be pro boycott, but I don't think it'll happen. There will be some pressure on Russia to change the law, there will be some lame amendment or reassurance by Russia that will incidentally also come across as a veiled threat, the Olympics will happen, Olympians will have security and not leave the village except for competition, one or two athletes will use a rainbow flag for their victory lap, lots of fans will be arrested and there will be some violence inc. police brutality, and then the Olympics will be over, and most people will breathe a massive sigh of relief.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
lol everytime i leave the house i see thousands of people celebrating that they are straight, talk about that they are straight, act straight, show off that they are straight.
dont know where you guys live that you dont see that. (probably in the vatican)
On August 02 2013 17:54 hfglgg wrote: lol everytime i leave the house i see thousands of people celebrating that they are straight, talk about that they are straight, act straight, show off that they are straight.
dont know where you guys live that you dont see that. (probably in the vatican)
They're probably too immersed in it to see it, but yes, everything in our daily modern world screams "straight". Look at advertising for a good example.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
I have no problem with gay people: but if you walk down the street mocking people while wearing pink shorts and a pink boa, it's not being gay, it's exhibitionism. I would despise a straight person too.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
I have no problem with gay people: but if you walk down the street mocking people while wearing pink shorts and a pink boa, it's not being gay, it's exhibitionism. I would despise a straight person too.
You do see smokers complaining about banning smoking from pubs, restaurants, etc. Why? Because they suddenly have a reason to. Why would you complain about something if you're being treated the way you want? Now, are homosexuals being treated equally? No. Obviously there will be protesting, provoking, etc. until their voices are heard. And that is very well within their rights and it's a good thing.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
i have seen smokers and nerds protest in the past. what now?
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
i have seen smokers and nerds protest in the past. what now?
I see your point, but it's logically invalid. I have also seen slave masters protest when slavery was abolished. What now?
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
i have seen smokers and nerds protest in the past. what now?
I see your point, but it's logically invalid. I have also seen slave masters protest when slavery was abolished. What now?
Slavery is against human rights, homosexuality is not. Neither is smoking or being a nerd. What now?
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
I have no problem with gay people: but if you walk down the street mocking people while wearing pink shorts and a pink boa, it's not being gay, it's exhibitionism. I would despise a straight person too.
You do see smokers complaining about banning smoking from pubs, restaurants, etc. Why? Because they suddenly have a reason to. Why would you complain about something if you're being treated the way you want? Now, are homosexuals being treated equally? No. Obviously there will be protesting, provoking, etc. until their voices are heard. And that is very well within their rights and it's a good thing.
this is you assuming that once gay people will be treated as equals, they wont make any parades?. or is you assuming that since gays will always be treated un-equally, they should be allowed to have parades anyway.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
i have seen smokers and nerds protest in the past. what now?
I see your point, but it's logically invalid. I have also seen slave masters protest when slavery was abolished. What now?
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
i have seen smokers and nerds protest in the past. what now?
I see your point, but it's logically invalid. I have also seen slave masters protest when slavery was abolished. What now?
Slavery is against human rights, homosexuality is not. Neither is smoking or being a nerd. What now?
That's the point: the conversation always is riduced to what is wrong and what is right (and it can't be any different).
For example, I would say that smoking could be against human rights, since it harms you and harms the other around you. Or I could say that working 1/3 of your day is evolved slavery, but noone is against that.
In case it is not clear, my point is: let gay people be gay people, but please, don't show off. I have some gay friends who are actually repulsed by the idea of this showing off which does more harm than benefits: those are the reasonable people I like to talk with.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
I have no problem with gay people: but if you walk down the street mocking people while wearing pink shorts and a pink boa, it's not being gay, it's exhibitionism. I would despise a straight person too.
You do see smokers complaining about banning smoking from pubs, restaurants, etc. Why? Because they suddenly have a reason to. Why would you complain about something if you're being treated the way you want? Now, are homosexuals being treated equally? No. Obviously there will be protesting, provoking, etc. until their voices are heard. And that is very well within their rights and it's a good thing.
this is you assuming that once gay people will be treated as equals, they wont make any parades?. or is you assuming that since gays will always be treated un-equally, they should be allowed to have parades anyway.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
I have no problem with gay people: but if you walk down the street mocking people while wearing pink shorts and a pink boa, it's not being gay, it's exhibitionism. I would despise a straight person too.
You do see smokers complaining about banning smoking from pubs, restaurants, etc. Why? Because they suddenly have a reason to. Why would you complain about something if you're being treated the way you want? Now, are homosexuals being treated equally? No. Obviously there will be protesting, provoking, etc. until their voices are heard. And that is very well within their rights and it's a good thing.
this is you assuming that once gay people will be treated as equals, they wont make any parades?. or is you assuming that since gays will always be treated un-equally, they should be allowed to have parades anyway.
It's perhaps assuming, but it seems pretty logical.
Where is the incentive, both to parade or indeed even BE a community in a world where being gay is just a normal thing? If they are treated equally, it should cease to be a defining feature of their identity.
When you are in a group of people and it's 'Oh here's Kevin, he's a graphic designer and is into jazz,' rather than 'Oh here's Kevin, the gay guy', then it'll be fine and dandy.
While this thread has devolved to a pretty generic gay/anti-gay discussion, I think this is about something completely different: the Olympics (and all of sports, for that matter) are complete and total sell-outs. They don't give a shit about values, they care first and foremost about money - which is probably not a thing we should single them out on, because everyone does that, if it weren't for them (specially the Olympics) pretending to play for a "higher purpose".
That they don't care about anything else can be see in the level of ass-climbing to the nations in power that we see everyday from big event organisers. They just don't have enough integrity to say: we are not gonna make events in your country unless you start honouring the values we represent - otherwise there would be no way that the Olympics are hosted in Russia, or China for that matter (or even worse, the Hockey Cup in Belarus, some football stuff in UAE and so on...). Anyone who says something along "isolating them does not help, we must approach them, try to integrate them into our democratic system" is desilusional. Actually, this could be a very rare circumstance where an argument by Hitler could be appropriate, but I guess I will abstain.
On August 02 2013 12:33 GhostLink wrote: Well, good. You don't seen straight people on the streets rallying because they're proud to be straight. I don't want gays doing that either, because frankly I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. It's their business, why drag the rest of us into it.
Quote for life.
The reason why straight people doesnt do it is because they dont get mistreated for being straight, gay people do get mistreated for being gay...
The first step in becoming equal is eliminating the differences. If a category puts itself differently, they are the first ones who want to be different. I don't see smokers/beer lovers/nerds/whatever category protest (in very untasty ways, too)
i have seen smokers and nerds protest in the past. what now?
I see your point, but it's logically invalid. I have also seen slave masters protest when slavery was abolished. What now?
Slavery is against human rights, homosexuality is not. Neither is smoking or being a nerd. What now?
That's the point: the conversation always is riduced to what is wrong and what is right (and it can't be any different).
For example, I would say that smoking could be against human rights, since it harms you and harms the other around you. Or I could say that working 1/3 of your day is evolved slavery, but noone is against that.
In case it is not clear, my point is: let gay people be gay people, but please, don't show off. I have some gay friends who are actually repulsed by the idea of this showing off which does more harm than benefits: those are the reasonable people I like to talk with.
Alright, this I can agree with. But only once there's equality. Otherwise there's always going to be a reason to protest, parade, etc. What's the point of showing their pride, their community if it wasn't considered a big deal to be homosexual? I generally consider any form of non-violent protesting that doesn't harm anyone a good thing.
I wonder if Russia would actually have the balls to arrest any visitors on the grounds of being gay. Don't see why they would do this, its a lose/lose situation for them.
They enforce it and anyone gets punished during the Olympics, they make themselves the public enemy for a lot of people. And if they don't enforce it properly then everyone including their own people will think they are full of it.
edit: Not to mention lost revenue, I can't imagine many gays or gay rights supporters will be going to the russian olympics. What the hell were they thinking.
On August 02 2013 18:28 opisska wrote: While this thread has devolved to a pretty generic gay/anti-gay discussion, I think this is about something completely different: the Olympics (and all of sports, for that matter) are complete and total sell-outs. They don't give a shit about values, they care first and foremost about money - which is probably not a thing we should single them out on, because everyone does that, if it weren't for them (specially the Olympics) pretending to play for a "higher purpose".
That they don't care about anything else can be see in the level of ass-climbing to the nations in power that we see everyday from big event organisers. They just don't have enough integrity to say: we are not gonna make events in your country unless you start honouring the values we represent - otherwise there would be no way that the Olympics are hosted in Russia, or China for that matter (or even worse, the Hockey Cup in Belarus, some football stuff in UAE and so on...). Anyone who says something along "isolating them does not help, we must approach them, try to integrate them into our democratic system" is desilusional. Actually, this could be a very rare circumstance where an argument by Hitler could be appropriate, but I guess I will abstain.
The Qatar success in getting the football worldcup is the last straw for me. A World Cup, a gathering of the fans in a place that is too hot to play the games in summer, where alcohol is banned, not to mention the sexual repression there.
It's a complete kick in the teeth of the supporters who make such events what they are, and who travel en masse.
I don't mind the Olympics if it wasn't for the pious shit around it about the 'Olympic family' or 'the Olympic values'. If people weren't kicked out of certain Olympic venues in London for drinking Pepsi instead of coke it's an easier case to argue. If a company associated with the Bhopal disaster wasn't a sponsor.
It's a joke.
I mean, it's only a small thing but I'm not watching them, despite being a sport fan they are overblown monstrosities.
Did you read the law? it is not agains the law in Russia to do anything you want in a privacy of your own bedroom between adalts. Law is agains promotin ben gay.
On August 02 2013 18:34 Mutineer wrote: Did you read the law? it is not agains the law in Russia to do anything you want in a privacy of your own bedroom between adalts. Law is agains promotin ben gay.
Read the thread. Jesus H Christ, some people.
If you disagree with plenty of the additional discussion, by all means go ahead. Don't just come into a thread where people are discussing what the law might/does allow and disregard heaps of comments.
the "dont show off" argument doesnt count as long as there are repercussions against sexual orientation. how should they protest (which is THE foundation of democracy) if they cant get vocal? and what is showing off in the first place? CSD is more of a happening anyway and is similar to other demonstration-fun-events. i.e. the love parade in germany is not about homosexuality, bisexuality, straight sexuality or anything but if you want to see naked people doing ridiculous stuff, go to the love parade. however, lot of them are young girls so why would people care? (i am not sure the love parade exists anymore though) but beside those big happenings, what is showing off? i can not have a problem with rainbow flags or things like that because i see 100s of different political symbols every day. fight capitalism, fight fascism, too much foreigners, more money for X, less money for Y, taxes are too high, taxes are too low, taxes are right but used for the wrong things. you name it.
so happenings are special and symbols are part of my everyday life. well what is left? talking about it? please, people talk about _everything_. if i found talking about stuff offensive, i wouldnt live in germany (and berlin of all places).
there is one thing left though: acting upon it. but i hope no one here is honestly saying that kissing his boyfriend / girlfriend is something oh so terrible.
On August 02 2013 18:28 opisska wrote: While this thread has devolved to a pretty generic gay/anti-gay discussion, I think this is about something completely different: the Olympics (and all of sports, for that matter) are complete and total sell-outs. They don't give a shit about values, they care first and foremost about money - which is probably not a thing we should single them out on, because everyone does that, if it weren't for them (specially the Olympics) pretending to play for a "higher purpose".
That they don't care about anything else can be see in the level of ass-climbing to the nations in power that we see everyday from big event organisers. They just don't have enough integrity to say: we are not gonna make events in your country unless you start honouring the values we represent - otherwise there would be no way that the Olympics are hosted in Russia, or China for that matter (or even worse, the Hockey Cup in Belarus, some football stuff in UAE and so on...). Anyone who says something along "isolating them does not help, we must approach them, try to integrate them into our democratic system" is desilusional. Actually, this could be a very rare circumstance where an argument by Hitler could be appropriate, but I guess I will abstain.
The Qatar success in getting the football worldcup is the last straw for me. A World Cup, a gathering of the fans in a place that is too hot to play the games in summer, where alcohol is banned, not to mention the sexual repression there.
It's a complete kick in the teeth of the supporters who make such events what they are, and who travel en masse.
I don't mind the Olympics if it wasn't for the pious shit around it about the 'Olympic family' or 'the Olympic values'. If people weren't kicked out of certain Olympic venues in London for drinking Pepsi instead of coke it's an easier case to argue. If a company associated with the Bhopal disaster wasn't a sponsor.
It's a joke.
I mean, it's only a small thing but I'm not watching them, despite being a sport fan they are overblown monstrosities.
Ups, sorry, it's Qatar, that's what I coulnd't find squat on the UAE thing, it doesn't exist
During the games I will make sure to watch as many price ceremonies as I can, praying that one of the athletes will dare make a statement, like pulling out a rainbow flag or something. That would be the best thing ever.
The Russian law against “gay propaganda” is not going to apply to the participants and guests of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, a top lawmaker said.
“The Olympics is a major international event. Our task is to be as politically correct and tolerant as we can be. That’s why we made the decision not to raise this issue during the Games,” Interfax news agency cites said Igor Ananskikh, the head of the Russian Duma Committee on physical training, sports and youth, as saying.
[...]
The less stringent approach voiced by the Russian lawmaker is more in line with a previous statement by the International Olympic Committee, saying that it had “received assurances from the highest level of government in Russia that the legislation will not affect those attending or taking part in the Games.”
Is Russia Today a reliable news source? I've somehow got the impression that they're not, but I can't seem to remember how I've got that impression. Either way, if the news are correct, at least that's a small step in the right direction.
On August 02 2013 18:34 Mutineer wrote: Did you read the law? it is not agains the law in Russia to do anything you want in a privacy of your own bedroom between adalts. Law is agains promotin ben gay.
Wether or not gays are tolerated is not the point. The point is that such a law is repressive and discriminatory. Look around you and you'll notice hundreds of heterosexual "so-called propaganda", pictures of couples kissing or holding hands during a vacation, wedding ads, etc.
It also sets a tone, implicitly, that gays are NOT wanted in Russia.
Way to overblow everything, whats wrong with not alowing children to promote homosexuality? Not involving children in sex should be normal in this world. Lets just hope the US doesnt use all the private data they stole to blackmail the athletes from all the other countries into giving them gold medals...
As much as I dissagree with what the Russian people are doing, I doubt the issue is important enough to boycott the world's most important winter sports event.
k i'm done at people telling it's okay to ban gays as it's their "belief" and personal views that may not be allowed to be expressed in russia. in contrast to some religion or personal views, sexuality is not a lifestyle or some random idea. by criminalizing the whole LGBT topic they don't take away freedom of speech or whatever, it's not a personal opinion, it's a trait of human beings. I mean if blacks had to bleach their skin (as nicki did) for the olympics in order to not propagate black-ness (cause maybe some weird-ass country doesn't agree on people being born black), it would be ridiculous. Each human has his genetical traits and it doesn't have anything to do with personal views or whatever. Thus all this is not a "cultural standard" or "traditional opinion" that should be respected in the country given, it's fascism. Sorry for my english, hope y'all got my point. ashamed to be russian tbh.
That awkward moment when you learn the news about your country on TL forum. Especially if it is provocation: http://www.forbes.ru/news/242978-gosduma-razreshila-uchastnikam-i-gostyam-olimpiady-v-sochi-gei-propagandu Unfortunately, there is no english version of this article, but forbes is well respected source. I remember how the sh"t went down in foreign mass media in august 2008 when "Russians started bloody war during olympics".
I don't want to argue about the whole thing with human rights, gay proud etc., I just want to remind you that 2 decades ago it was the whole other country, basically police state. And not much has changed since that. Becides, it is not only about the state, it is about the whole other culture. Of course, we want to declare ourselves a developed, civilized country, but the little town out in the ass-end of nowhere in Siberia (where I'm from) still looks like it is 19th centure.
As long as Russian so-called elite is free to launder and invest the money that they steal from Russian people in Western countries without any reaction from local authorities whatsoever, shit like this will continue. Russian crooks will continue to buy palaces of gold and marble in London and Nice, their children will continue to study, work and live in Europe and the US, while locally the crackdown on all kinds of freedom and the growth of already widespread corruption and lawlessness will go on too.
On August 02 2013 15:12 FarmI3oy wrote: I applaud Russia for standing up in what they believe in.
They aren't restricting gays from being in their country. Just restricting them from making publicly scenes of gayness.
I don't care what anyone says, but since the laws starting getting passed in different states the number of bisexual men and women has increased. The whole thing has just become OK with everyone it seems. Russia hopes to thwart that.
What are they thwarting? What moral peril is being averted that necessitates preventing these people from expressing themselves?
As to your suggestion that, I don't know people are becoming bisexual because it's trendy or something?
Actually what they are thwarting would be russian sovereignty. If you would boycott the olympics because of this law, you should boycott everything russia. If the olympics are hold on russian territory they have the right to enforce their laws. I do not agree with these laws, but I am gonna have to comply if I am in Russia. The Olympics do not impose an exceptional state of peace love and tolerance. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do!"
Interesting questions: Why did the Olympic Committee give the games to Russia? (Although I think the law is a recent one) Why are there no prerequisites to host the olympic games regarding human rights etc.?
this is a road to disaster for Russia. There are plenty of athletes who will consider violating the law just for the good press it will bring them. I mean $3000 and a week in prison in exchange for a "hero" status? And that is excluding those who actually care about the cause. Chances are because of this law the actual exposure of the Russian population to the info on sexual minorities will increase.
To this day, i still don't understand how immature people can become leaders of countries, or in possesion of seriious power. It's gradeschool fighting on global scale. (Random list of immature things people will say): "Being gay is unnatural!" "Women are second class citizen!" "Somebody defied my religion!" "White people are racists!" ________
Seriously, if the leader of a fcking country says or support statements like these, you know your country will take a turn toward the dark ages of ignorance, because he/she will be incapable of respecting the privacy of his citizen...
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.
There is one thing that I do not tolerate and that is intolerance. Problem?
I just don't know what to say to people who are on board with this in any form. It blows my mind that people are okay with the effective elimination of all social support for gay and transgendered people. Why is it okay for a straight couple to hold hands on the street and gays not? Why is it okay for a straight couples to be depicted in the media and it considered breaking the law if gay people are?
Not only that but you can be jailed for speaking out about marriage equality. You can be jailed for being a gay rights advocate! Homosexuals are often severely beaten in russia if they show public affection, what makes this okay? In what way is it morally acceptable to even think of denying a large minority a part of their fundemental identity? To take away all hope of having any normal and happy life because at every turn you must strive to keep a part of you secret.
For the straight people who don't understand what a nightmare this creates for gay people I'll try and give you an analogy. Imagine it is now illegal to talk about how women are attractive, talk about how your date went last night, tell someone you are interested in finding a woman to date, to be seen being close to a woman in public, or even have a date in a public place with a woman. But you're a prudent law abiding citizen and think this is okay but because of these restrictions it is really hard to find a woman and you want to try and find a way to 'manage' this part of yourself but you can't find help because no one wants to go to jail just to help you. Maybe now you want to speak out about it, but you can't because you would go to jail just like that friend who couldn't help you. To top it off if you were to try to spread word random people would physically beat you.
I admit to not having read this entire thread, but I think this has more to do with the practical nature of security during a big event like the Olympics. I don't know whether or not official Russia persecutes gays, but I do know that there are a lot of Russians that do.
Almost every time you hear of a Pride parade or the like in Russia, you also hear of violent rioting and fighting in the streets. Obviously the authorities want to prevent such a thing happening during the Olympics and this law, while embarassing in western eyes, is pretty much all they can do.
So I don't think the Russian authorities deserve all this condemnation ITT. They just want to get the Olympics off without bullshit and I don't blame them.
On August 02 2013 21:23 beef42 wrote: I admit to not having read this entire thread, but I think this has more to do with the practical nature of security during a big event like the Olympics. I don't know whether or not official Russia persecutes gays, but I do know that there are a lot of Russians that do.
Almost every time you hear of a Pride parade or the like in Russia, you also hear of violent rioting and fighting in the streets. Obviously the authorities want to prevent such a thing happening during the Olympics and this law, while embarassing in western eyes, is pretty much all they can do.
So I don't think the Russian authorities deserve all this condemnation ITT. They just want to get the Olympics off without bullshit and I don't blame them.
On August 02 2013 20:26 Evilmystic wrote: As long as Russian so-called elite is free to launder and invest the money that they steal from Russian people in Western countries without any reaction from local authorities whatsoever, shit like this will continue. Russian crooks will continue to buy palaces of gold and marble in London and Nice, their children will continue to study, work and live in Europe and the US, while locally the crackdown on all kinds of freedom and the growth of already widespread corruption and lawlessness will go on too.
On August 02 2013 21:23 beef42 wrote: I admit to not having read this entire thread, but I think this has more to do with the practical nature of security during a big event like the Olympics. I don't know whether or not official Russia persecutes gays, but I do know that there are a lot of Russians that do.
Almost every time you hear of a Pride parade or the like in Russia, you also hear of violent rioting and fighting in the streets. Obviously the authorities want to prevent such a thing happening during the Olympics and this law, while embarassing in western eyes, is pretty much all they can do.
So I don't think the Russian authorities deserve all this condemnation ITT. They just want to get the Olympics off without bullshit and I don't blame them.
the law is not done especially for olympia.
Yes it is. Fining and detaining foreigners for gay rights agitation? What the hell else would it be for?
On August 02 2013 21:23 beef42 wrote: I admit to not having read this entire thread, but I think this has more to do with the practical nature of security during a big event like the Olympics. I don't know whether or not official Russia persecutes gays, but I do know that there are a lot of Russians that do.
Almost every time you hear of a Pride parade or the like in Russia, you also hear of violent rioting and fighting in the streets. Obviously the authorities want to prevent such a thing happening during the Olympics and this law, while embarassing in western eyes, is pretty much all they can do.
So I don't think the Russian authorities deserve all this condemnation ITT. They just want to get the Olympics off without bullshit and I don't blame them.
the law is not done especially for olympia.
Yes it is. Fining and detaining foreigners for gay rights agitation? What the hell else would it be for?
the law is in place for a while now (a few weeks). the IOC just stated that during the time of olympia this law would not be enforced (opposoed to the other 50 weeks of the year) which turns out to be not true. its no special anti-gay-olympia law.
On August 02 2013 21:23 beef42 wrote: I admit to not having read this entire thread, but I think this has more to do with the practical nature of security during a big event like the Olympics. I don't know whether or not official Russia persecutes gays, but I do know that there are a lot of Russians that do.
Almost every time you hear of a Pride parade or the like in Russia, you also hear of violent rioting and fighting in the streets. Obviously the authorities want to prevent such a thing happening during the Olympics and this law, while embarassing in western eyes, is pretty much all they can do.
So I don't think the Russian authorities deserve all this condemnation ITT. They just want to get the Olympics off without bullshit and I don't blame them.
the law is not done especially for olympia.
Yes it is. Fining and detaining foreigners for gay rights agitation? What the hell else would it be for?
the law is in place for a while now (a few weeks). the IOC just stated that during the time of olympia this law would not be enforced (opposoed to the other 50 weeks of the year) which turns out to be not true. its no special anti-gay-olympia law.
It might not say so in the text, but dude. Think about it. Why else would Russian authorities care what foreigners are up to? Note that the law is specifically aimed at foreigners.
Since when does Putin & Co need to legislate to get rid of troublemakers? Remember Pussy Riot?
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.
To use one's freedom of speech to 'bash' nations that violate human rights is rather different from taking away those rights through legislation. You're the (fucking) joker, or just flat out stupid.
On August 02 2013 21:23 beef42 wrote: I admit to not having read this entire thread, but I think this has more to do with the practical nature of security during a big event like the Olympics. I don't know whether or not official Russia persecutes gays, but I do know that there are a lot of Russians that do.
Almost every time you hear of a Pride parade or the like in Russia, you also hear of violent rioting and fighting in the streets. Obviously the authorities want to prevent such a thing happening during the Olympics and this law, while embarassing in western eyes, is pretty much all they can do.
So I don't think the Russian authorities deserve all this condemnation ITT. They just want to get the Olympics off without bullshit and I don't blame them.
the law is not done especially for olympia.
Yes it is. Fining and detaining foreigners for gay rights agitation? What the hell else would it be for?
the law is in place for a while now (a few weeks). the IOC just stated that during the time of olympia this law would not be enforced (opposoed to the other 50 weeks of the year) which turns out to be not true. its no special anti-gay-olympia law.
It might not say so in the text, but dude. Think about it. Why else would Russian authorities care what foreigners are up to? Note that the law is specifically aimed at foreigners.
Since when does Putin & Co need to legislate to get rid of troublemakers? Remember Pussy Riot?
are you saying that the law is only there for / because of olympia? because if so thats just not true. if they didnt pass this law, there wouldnt even be a discussion about lgbt rights during that time. up until now, russia wasnt overly oppressive against gays when you compare it to other countries like i.e. china.
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.
To use one's freedom of speech to 'bash' nations that violate human rights is rather different from taking away those rights through legislation. You're the (fucking) joker, or just flat out stupid.
so forcing your own normative notion of human rights upon unwilling nations is also acceptable? see, that turned out well for america did it?
On August 02 2013 21:23 beef42 wrote: I admit to not having read this entire thread, but I think this has more to do with the practical nature of security during a big event like the Olympics. I don't know whether or not official Russia persecutes gays, but I do know that there are a lot of Russians that do.
Almost every time you hear of a Pride parade or the like in Russia, you also hear of violent rioting and fighting in the streets. Obviously the authorities want to prevent such a thing happening during the Olympics and this law, while embarassing in western eyes, is pretty much all they can do.
So I don't think the Russian authorities deserve all this condemnation ITT. They just want to get the Olympics off without bullshit and I don't blame them.
the law is not done especially for olympia.
Yes it is. Fining and detaining foreigners for gay rights agitation? What the hell else would it be for?
the law is in place for a while now (a few weeks). the IOC just stated that during the time of olympia this law would not be enforced (opposoed to the other 50 weeks of the year) which turns out to be not true. its no special anti-gay-olympia law.
It might not say so in the text, but dude. Think about it. Why else would Russian authorities care what foreigners are up to? Note that the law is specifically aimed at foreigners.
Since when does Putin & Co need to legislate to get rid of troublemakers? Remember Pussy Riot?
are you saying that the law is only there for / because of olympia? because if so thats just not true. if they didnt pass this law, there wouldnt even be a discussion about lgbt rights during that time. up until now, russia wasnt overly oppressive against gays when you compare it to other countries like i.e. china.
not official Russia, no. But among common people in the large country there are a lot of conservatives that will hit the streets to fight and throw stones at anyone who is too loudly gay. Surely you've heard of riots at Pride parades. Not only Russia, most of eastern Europe is like this. Pretty widespread culture.
Now cue the olympics. Thousands of foreign athletes, coaches, journalists, tourists, etc etc will come to this town at once. The authorities don't know what will happen. They're worried. They don't want rioting during the Olympics which is a big prestige thing, so they pass this clumsy but symbolic law. They're saying "don't start any shit please, foreigners."
What other motivation could there be for this law, other than keeping shit safe at this event? Why do you think they passed it then? Because Putin hates gays? Dude, then he would round them all up and throw them in jail.
I will repeat; sure it doesn't mention the Olympics in the official text but man. Think. Why else?
On August 02 2013 15:12 FarmI3oy wrote: I applaud Russia for standing up in what they believe in.
They aren't restricting gays from being in their country. Just restricting them from making publicly scenes of gayness.
I don't care what anyone says, but since the laws starting getting passed in different states the number of bisexual men and women has increased. The whole thing has just become OK with everyone it seems. Russia hopes to thwart that.
What are they thwarting? What moral peril is being averted that necessitates preventing these people from expressing themselves?
As to your suggestion that, I don't know people are becoming bisexual because it's trendy or something?
Actually what they are thwarting would be russian sovereignty. If you would boycott the olympics because of this law, you should boycott everything russia. If the olympics are hold on russian territory they have the right to enforce their laws. I do not agree with these laws, but I am gonna have to comply if I am in Russia. The Olympics do not impose an exceptional state of peace love and tolerance. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do!"
Interesting questions: Why did the Olympic Committee give the games to Russia? (Although I think the law is a recent one) Why are there no prerequisites to host the olympic games regarding human rights etc.?
I was referring to the poster in particular rather than the topic overall.
Because the IOC is corrupt, or it lacks moral/political desires I guess
On August 02 2013 20:26 Evilmystic wrote: As long as Russian so-called elite is free to launder and invest the money that they steal from Russian people in Western countries without any reaction from local authorities whatsoever, shit like this will continue. Russian crooks will continue to buy palaces of gold and marble in London and Nice, their children will continue to study, work and live in Europe and the US, while locally the crackdown on all kinds of freedom and the growth of already widespread corruption and lawlessness will go on too.
That is no way connected to LGBT rights.
There is a direct connection. Briefly speaking Russian authorities are going with this anti-LGBT agenda in order to win support of conservative and less advanced part of Russian society. It also helps to fuel this external enemy idea, because western civil rights groups and governments criticise our government for violating the civil rights and a part of our society interprets it as an attack on our values and demographic policy.
On August 02 2013 21:23 beef42 wrote: I admit to not having read this entire thread, but I think this has more to do with the practical nature of security during a big event like the Olympics. I don't know whether or not official Russia persecutes gays, but I do know that there are a lot of Russians that do.
Almost every time you hear of a Pride parade or the like in Russia, you also hear of violent rioting and fighting in the streets. Obviously the authorities want to prevent such a thing happening during the Olympics and this law, while embarassing in western eyes, is pretty much all they can do.
So I don't think the Russian authorities deserve all this condemnation ITT. They just want to get the Olympics off without bullshit and I don't blame them.
the law is not done especially for olympia.
Yes it is. Fining and detaining foreigners for gay rights agitation? What the hell else would it be for?
the law is in place for a while now (a few weeks). the IOC just stated that during the time of olympia this law would not be enforced (opposoed to the other 50 weeks of the year) which turns out to be not true. its no special anti-gay-olympia law.
It might not say so in the text, but dude. Think about it. Why else would Russian authorities care what foreigners are up to? Note that the law is specifically aimed at foreigners.
Since when does Putin & Co need to legislate to get rid of troublemakers? Remember Pussy Riot?
are you saying that the law is only there for / because of olympia? because if so thats just not true. if they didnt pass this law, there wouldnt even be a discussion about lgbt rights during that time. up until now, russia wasnt overly oppressive against gays when you compare it to other countries like i.e. china.
not official Russia, no. But among common people in the large country there are a lot of conservatives that will hit the streets to fight and throw stones at anyone who is too loudly gay. Surely you've heard of riots at Pride parades. Not only Russia, most of eastern Europe is like this. Pretty widespread culture.
Now cue the olympics. Thousands of foreign athletes, coaches, journalists, tourists, etc etc will come to this town at once. The authorities don't know what will happen. They're worried. They don't want rioting during the Olympics which is a big prestige thing, so they pass this clumsy but symbolic law. They're saying "don't start any shit please, foreigners."
What other motivation could there be for this law, other than keeping shit safe at this event? Why do you think they passed it then? Because Putin hates gays? Dude, then he would round them all up and throw them in jail.
I will repeat; sure it doesn't mention the Olympics in the official text but man. Think. Why else?
it doesnt make sense to enforce a law that has the potential to start unwanted discussions and bring the whole country into an even worse light than it is right now. there were a lot of reasons for protesters to go on the street in russia, lgbt rights was a very minor one. now, with that law in place, the whole discussion started. without the law, nothing would have happend. win-win.
the russian society is _very_ homophobic. if you did a crime with a homophobic motive, your punishment would already be lighter as if you did the same crime for another reason. lawyers advised their clients to admit murdering someone because the victim was gay, because there was a higher chance to just get a minor sentence. most russians also are in favour of this law with about 10% of the russian population agreeing with the statement "gays should be imprisoned" and about 5% even agree with gays being murdered.
i think this law is, as terrible as it sounds, what the majority of russians want.
Which is what I've been saying all along and which is exactly why they don't want westerners with good intentions shitting all over their precious Olympics. Why would native Russians care about this law again? It's aimed at foreigners.
On August 02 2013 21:57 beef42 wrote: Which is what I've been saying all along and which is exactly why they don't want westerners with good intentions shitting all over their precious Olympics. Why would native Russians care about this law again? It's aimed at foreigners.
its aimed at everyone. if they dont want foreigners to shit over their precious olympics, they would just have done the opposite or at least not enforce it for the time of olympia. russia just put fuel into the fire, that doesnt seem very smart to me.
On August 02 2013 18:20 PiPoGevy wrote: There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion, it's not hurting anyone
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
On August 02 2013 18:20 PiPoGevy wrote: There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion, it's not hurting anyone
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
On August 02 2013 20:26 Evilmystic wrote: As long as Russian so-called elite is free to launder and invest the money that they steal from Russian people in Western countries without any reaction from local authorities whatsoever, shit like this will continue. Russian crooks will continue to buy palaces of gold and marble in London and Nice, their children will continue to study, work and live in Europe and the US, while locally the crackdown on all kinds of freedom and the growth of already widespread corruption and lawlessness will go on too.
That is no way connected to LGBT rights.
There is a direct connection. Briefly speaking Russian authorities are going with this anti-LGBT agenda in order to win support of conservative and less advanced part of Russian society. It also helps to fuel this external enemy idea, because western civil rights groups and governments criticise our government for violating the civil rights and a part of our society interprets it as an attack on our values and demographic policy.
I doubt they would introduce "external enemy idea" at all, especially over gay people. You must consider, even if it's true, that Orthodox church has very strong presence, as in my country, which is reacting every time against pride. Right wing is logical choice if people are living poorly and it will first appear in less developed countries like Greece, Russia or here. LGBT is just a small toy but I agree with your opinion which I hadn't in mind when I wrote my oneliner before.
On August 02 2013 18:20 PiPoGevy wrote: There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion, it's not hurting anyone
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
On August 02 2013 18:20 PiPoGevy wrote: There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion, it's not hurting anyone
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
See my previous post to explain the connection, which, again, I didn't think I needed to explain.
I can only apologise to you if you think I should be assuming stupidity and filling in the steps?
Anti-gay legislation helps to legitimise anti-gay actions by individuals/groups - why are you quibbling with me? :/
On August 02 2013 18:20 PiPoGevy wrote: There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion, it's not hurting anyone
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
See my previous post to explain the connection, which, again, I didn't think I needed to explain.
I can only apologise to you if you think I should be assuming stupidity and filling in the steps?
Anti-gay legislation helps to legitimise anti-gay actions by individuals/groups - why are you quibbling with me? :/
There is no reason to assume laws like this LEAD to more of those attacks which is what you implied.
I didn't ask you to fill in the gaps, I'm just telling you what's in the gaps is wrong.
On August 02 2013 10:15 Artax wrote: There are people in the US who finish high school and can't read, practically doomed to a life of poverty. There are people outside the US who are starving, people oppressed, people tortured, and us spoiled westerners can't stop talking about gay "rights" like a paper that says marriage. I'm all for gay rights but this is becoming a fucking obsession that pushes out far more important issues... I'm just sick of hearing about it every single day and constantly harped on by the mainstream media because it gets views and clicks when there are so much more pressing concerns but those don't have an edgy controversial political bent to them which gets shallow people to opportunistically spout some self-righteousness without actually doing or accomplishing anything.... The whole thing is sickening and boring and stale and I can't wait for anything, anything at all to become the new yuppie flavor of the month issue because anything at all is better than this exaggerated victimization. /rant
The "there are worse things out there to support so stop supporting this!" argument is sickening and boring and stale.
That's not the argument he's making. He's commenting on how today's young, liberal crowd are harping on gay rights like it's the most important thing in the world, while billions of people starve and genocides are commited across the globe. Personally, I'm rather annoyed of yuppies. Kids that have never worked a day in their lives, pampered by mommy and daddy, that think they know everything about the world.
Probably because legalizing same-sex marriage is literally as simple as the government letting two people of the same sex receive the exact same legal benefits/responsibilities as two people of the opposite sex through marriage. Stopping genocide/eliminating starvation are massive issues with no clear solutions. What's more, most of these things are the result of long-standing internal strife in nations/groups, and you can't just legislate them to stop fighting each other.
As for gay people, it's a matter that has absolutely no impact on anyone who isn't actually gay, so...
On August 02 2013 18:20 PiPoGevy wrote: There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion, it's not hurting anyone
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
See my previous post to explain the connection, which, again, I didn't think I needed to explain.
I can only apologise to you if you think I should be assuming stupidity and filling in the steps?
Anti-gay legislation helps to legitimise anti-gay actions by individuals/groups - why are you quibbling with me? :/
There is no reason to assume laws like this LEAD to more of those attacks which is what you implied.
I didn't ask you to fill in the gaps, I'm just telling you what's in the gaps is wrong.
Of course it will lead to more attacks. If the state makes laws implying that being homophobic is okay, homophic attacks will increase.
On August 02 2013 18:20 PiPoGevy wrote: There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion, it's not hurting anyone
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
See my previous post to explain the connection, which, again, I didn't think I needed to explain.
I can only apologise to you if you think I should be assuming stupidity and filling in the steps?
Anti-gay legislation helps to legitimise anti-gay actions by individuals/groups - why are you quibbling with me? :/
There is no reason to assume laws like this LEAD to more of those attacks which is what you implied.
I didn't ask you to fill in the gaps, I'm just telling you what's in the gaps is wrong.
Of course it will lead to more attacks. If the state makes laws implying that being homophobic is okay, homophic attacks will increase.
It is not obvious that a law that restricts public displays of homosexuality will increase the rate of homophobic attacks. This is the same fallacy as assuming that after the Trayvon Martin case, we can expect more self-defence killings in the U.S.
On August 02 2013 20:14 marvellosity wrote: [quote]
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
See my previous post to explain the connection, which, again, I didn't think I needed to explain.
I can only apologise to you if you think I should be assuming stupidity and filling in the steps?
Anti-gay legislation helps to legitimise anti-gay actions by individuals/groups - why are you quibbling with me? :/
There is no reason to assume laws like this LEAD to more of those attacks which is what you implied.
I didn't ask you to fill in the gaps, I'm just telling you what's in the gaps is wrong.
Of course it will lead to more attacks. If the state makes laws implying that being homophobic is okay, homophic attacks will increase.
It is not obvious that a law that restricts public displays of homosexuality will increase the rate of homophobic attacks. This is the same fallacy as assuming that after the Trayvon Martin case, we can expect more self-defence killings in the U.S.
On August 02 2013 22:01 PiPoGevy wrote: [quote] That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
See my previous post to explain the connection, which, again, I didn't think I needed to explain.
I can only apologise to you if you think I should be assuming stupidity and filling in the steps?
Anti-gay legislation helps to legitimise anti-gay actions by individuals/groups - why are you quibbling with me? :/
There is no reason to assume laws like this LEAD to more of those attacks which is what you implied.
I didn't ask you to fill in the gaps, I'm just telling you what's in the gaps is wrong.
Of course it will lead to more attacks. If the state makes laws implying that being homophobic is okay, homophic attacks will increase.
It is not obvious that a law that restricts public displays of homosexuality will increase the rate of homophobic attacks. This is the same fallacy as assuming that after the Trayvon Martin case, we can expect more self-defence killings in the U.S.
On August 02 2013 22:15 marvellosity wrote: [quote]
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
See my previous post to explain the connection, which, again, I didn't think I needed to explain.
I can only apologise to you if you think I should be assuming stupidity and filling in the steps?
Anti-gay legislation helps to legitimise anti-gay actions by individuals/groups - why are you quibbling with me? :/
There is no reason to assume laws like this LEAD to more of those attacks which is what you implied.
I didn't ask you to fill in the gaps, I'm just telling you what's in the gaps is wrong.
Of course it will lead to more attacks. If the state makes laws implying that being homophobic is okay, homophic attacks will increase.
It is not obvious that a law that restricts public displays of homosexuality will increase the rate of homophobic attacks. This is the same fallacy as assuming that after the Trayvon Martin case, we can expect more self-defence killings in the U.S.
.... it's not like that at all.
A convincing argument, old chap.
Hard to make an argument where I can't even really see what parallels you're drawing.
State sanctioned homophobia ---> homophobic actions by individuals
is the same as
Contentious self-defence case ---> more shootings?
Banning the expression and effectively banning protesting/speaking positively of homosexuals only further deteriorates an already poor social conditions of homosexuals. if you cannot see why this law would only further hurt homosexuals leading to more occurrences of things like this. The law effectively prevents things from getting better for homosexuals so they can either stay the same or get worse.
On August 02 2013 20:14 marvellosity wrote: [quote]
Yeah, it's not hurting anyone. Because the society in Russia isn't letting tonnes of shit like this happen.
Everything is fine.
...
That's called assault, nothing to do with rights -.-
The fact you can't see how the two are connected is slightly concerning
Connecting random events and assuming one leads to the other and then mocking others for not making the same silly assumptions is more than slightly concerning . It is much more logical to guess that they are both caused by the same factor, that the Russian population is very homophobic.
Why don't you check what I was originally responding to? The Russian population is indeed homophobic, and laws like the one enacted help legitimise stuff like what I posted. I didn't think it required a particular explanation :/
You responded to someone saying enforcing this law isn't hurting someone by implying very clearly that it caused the people to be hurt in your link, which is frankly.... stupid. :/
See my previous post to explain the connection, which, again, I didn't think I needed to explain.
I can only apologise to you if you think I should be assuming stupidity and filling in the steps?
Anti-gay legislation helps to legitimise anti-gay actions by individuals/groups - why are you quibbling with me? :/
There is no reason to assume laws like this LEAD to more of those attacks which is what you implied.
I didn't ask you to fill in the gaps, I'm just telling you what's in the gaps is wrong.
Of course it will lead to more attacks. If the state makes laws implying that being homophobic is okay, homophic attacks will increase.
It is not obvious that a law that restricts public displays of homosexuality will increase the rate of homophobic attacks. This is the same fallacy as assuming that after the Trayvon Martin case, we can expect more self-defence killings in the U.S.
But the law doesn't just restrict public displays of homosexuality. It completely prohibits any sort of defense for homosexuality as well. So on the one hand you have priests telling their entire congregations that homosexuals are the spawn of Satan and that's legal but for anyone to disagree with the priest is illegal. With this new law it is illegal to say anything at all positive about homosexuality therefore only negative things are going to be said about homosexuality. Do you really think that will not lead to a much more negative view of homosexuals in the entire country and therefore increase the rate of attacks on the perceived "lower class" of citizens?
On August 02 2013 08:16 Plansix wrote: Good luck with that Russia, I am sure the world community will respond well.
if people went to the olympics in China and Nazi Germany -- and anti-gay sentiment is viewed favorably in large portions of the third world and the Repulican leaning areas in the United States-- I dont really see too many people caring. Russians' bribed their way to hosting the Olympics fair and square and theyll probably go off with just minor beatings.
That's an incredibly misleading title given gay athletes are allowed to attend the Olympics, so they aren't enforcing the law at the Olympics. They're merely continuing to enforce the law during the Olympics.
Though this leaves the door open for gay Olympians to do something stupid, like protest the Russian law while there.
Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Welcome to TL, you will love your stay here. And it's not your fault, it's just your culture beating you over the head with that bigoted belief system. I live in one of those countries (post soviet eastern Europe), it's fascinating to observe the ignorance of this region as far as homosexuality goes. There's really nothing else, it's strictly ignorance. Anyone who bothered to read actual data and research would form a rational view of how it all works. Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles/rapists" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
But of course, everything which doesn't appeal to you is "propaganda". All those scientists and psychologists are only telling those facts about what makes homosexuals homosexual only to please "those damn gays". It's honestly fascinating that this region is legitimately like 40 years behind with its views and it makes complete sense considering that it took a while to get out of soviet regime.
Poeple always needed something to hate, it's interesting to look at the history of our species and see this incredibly consistent tendency to single out a certain group for something which they clearly didn't choose and have no control over (like nationalism/racism/sexism/homosexual oppression etc. did). I guess that's easier than judging people on their character and actions especially if you're stupid and need a way to boost your ego. Will need a couple generations to filter out the bigots, similarly to racism. Oh well.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
I am guessing he is going to say something along the lines of "They are demanding special rights" or "There are bigger problems out there."
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So what exactly is North America blind to? What exactly is happening that we need to be afraid of? Are gays causing an alien or demonic invasion? Is the black death spreading through our streets?
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
I am guessing he is going to say something along the lines of "They are demanding special rights" or "There are bigger problems out there."
It is our overall plan to take over the world and subjugate those dirty heterosexuals after all.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So what exactly is North America blind to? What exactly is happening that we need to be afraid of? Are gays causing an alien or demonic invasion? Is the black death spreading through our streets?
SHHH!!! We are secretly running an apartheid against straight people.
No one is more of a slave than he who thinks himself free without being so.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
I am guessing he is going to say something along the lines of "They are demanding special rights" or "There are bigger problems out there."
It is our overall plan to take over the world and subjugate those dirty heterosexuals after all.
I doubt Russia will bend to the will of the U.S. and whatever other countries try to dissuade them. If that's what their people want, they'll give it to them. Russia needs more time, even if they are going backward right now. No one's going to force them without taking over their country.
I thought Talin, and some banned posters made a decent point. Gay rights may be an important issue, but the amount we hear about it vs other issues is disproportional. However, like the GZ trial, it's easier to have a preformed opinion about it, and the fears are pretty natural, whether we like it or not.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So what exactly is North America blind to? What exactly is happening that we need to be afraid of? Are gays causing an alien or demonic invasion? Is the black death spreading through our streets?
My guess is that he's worried about the impending gay alien invasion. It'll end up like a mix between Independance Day and Hairspray.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So what exactly is North America blind to? What exactly is happening that we need to be afraid of? Are gays causing an alien or demonic invasion? Is the black death spreading through our streets?
My guess is that he's worried about the impending gay alien invasion. It'll end up like a mix between Independance Day and Hairspray.
On August 03 2013 01:38 Ansinjunger wrote: I doubt Russia will bend to the will of the U.S. and whatever other countries try to dissuade them. If that's what their people want, they'll give it to them. Russia needs more time, even if they are going backward right now. No one's going to force them without taking over their country.
I thought Talin, and some banned posters made a decent point. Gay rights may be an important issue, but the amount we hear about it vs other issues is disproportional. However, like the GZ trial, it's easier to have a preformed opinion about it, and the fears are pretty natural, whether we like it or not.
People in general do not engage in political or social discourse enough.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So what exactly is North America blind to? What exactly is happening that we need to be afraid of? Are gays causing an alien or demonic invasion? Is the black death spreading through our streets?
My guess is that he's worried about the impending gay alien invasion. It'll end up like a mix between Independance Day and Hairspray.
I'd very much like to see this movie
Will it still have Will Smith and a cross dressing John Travolta in it? I won't see it otherwise.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
stuff like that makes me sad. an educated society should be beyond such opinions. do you know how often in history minorities have been discriminated and prosecuted because of some vague accusations? and it is repeating again and again. if only what the majority does is "normal", should we outrule anything other than that? the majority of people is eating meat. so should we forbid the others to live in a vegetarian way? because, you need meat to live healthy and they will influence children to not eat meat as well and then society will fall apart because the cows and pigs are not eaten anymore and will flood the country. that's about as good an argument as claiming that gay people will undermine the country or the development of children. no sane homosexual person would show pornography to children, because, get this, they are "normal" in their way of thinking. they just don't fancy the other gender.
On August 03 2013 01:38 Ansinjunger wrote: I doubt Russia will bend to the will of the U.S. and whatever other countries try to dissuade them. If that's what their people want, they'll give it to them. Russia needs more time, even if they are going backward right now. No one's going to force them without taking over their country.
I thought Talin, and some banned posters made a decent point. Gay rights may be an important issue, but the amount we hear about it vs other issues is disproportional. However, like the GZ trial, it's easier to have a preformed opinion about it, and the fears are pretty natural, whether we like it or not.
Yeah but guess what, things like gay rights and the morning after pill would be total non-issues if certain religious pussy retards didn't force these ridiculous debates. People trying to excert control over other people's personal lives. Blame them.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
I am guessing he is going to say something along the lines of "They are demanding special rights" or "There are bigger problems out there."
It is our overall plan to take over the world and subjugate those dirty heterosexuals after all.
And rape them. Because it is a known fact that all homosexuals do all day long is raping heteros whenever they get the chance. Also turn all the children gay with the gay rays.
On August 03 2013 02:18 Zuxo wrote: Threads like this really bring out all the bigots and assholes in the gaming community. Sad that there are so many of them :/
dont worry, I isnt just the gaming community, there are many bigots and idiots in every society, regardless whether or not they are gamers.
I think that this is a very bad thing in the fact that freedom of speech isn't being given to people, but I don't understand what "gay propaganda" (as they call it) has to do with the Olympics. It's a time of competition and fun for people of all nations to watch the greatest athletes in the world. Why can't we just enjoy it?
On August 03 2013 02:18 Zuxo wrote: Threads like this really bring out all the bigots and assholes in the gaming community. Sad that there are so many of them :/
It also brings out a lot of the hypocrisy in the progressive side; "they're only intolerant because of fucking religion!" Neither sides perfect, one just has the moral highground, so to speak.
On August 03 2013 02:29 autoexec wrote: I think that this is a very bad thing in the fact that freedom of speech isn't being given to people, but I don't understand what "gay propaganda" (as they call it) has to do with the Olympics. It's a time of competition and fun for people of all nations to watch the greatest athletes in the world. Why can't we just enjoy it?
True the olympics are suppose to be anything but political but it's a set-up ripe for nationalism and thus political tensions
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
I am guessing he is going to say something along the lines of "They are demanding special rights" or "There are bigger problems out there."
It is our overall plan to take over the world and subjugate those dirty heterosexuals after all.
And rape them. Because it is a known fact that all homosexuals do all day long is raping heteros whenever they get the chance. Also turn all the children gay with the gay rays.
It's funny to us, but it's scary that this is essentially the exact belief a lot of people hold. It's even funnier when they try to sound rational and say things like "I am not intolerant as long as they stay the hell away from me, don't mess with our children". There have been some gay pride "parades" recently, so there has been a huge turmoil about this issue in my country, so I've read some comments under the articles on a popular news site and I honestly wasn't aware how extreme it gets.
Comments which were basically saying "gays should never be able to adopt children because they will clearly affect them and mess them up psychologically with their way of life" were getting like 20 thumb ups and 0 thumb downs and similar numbers were consistent on every similar ignorant comment unless someone said something even more completely mind-numbingly stupid (though even comments which threatened violence were thumbed up in about 9 out of 10 ratio). I know it's not exactly an accurate way to judge the public opinion, but on some other "discussions" I've observed there's usually some kind of divide.. In this case 95-99% were literally making completely uneducated and unsubstantiated nonsense based only on their ignorant worldview and nothing else, of course, and getting support. Similar to the poster above, any kind of statistic regarding the matter from US (what happens to adopted children when they grow up in same sex couple families etc.), for example, is regarded as "liberal propaganda". It really is fucking sad.
On August 03 2013 02:29 autoexec wrote: I think that this is a very bad thing in the fact that freedom of speech isn't being given to people, but I don't understand what "gay propaganda" (as they call it) has to do with the Olympics. It's a time of competition and fun for people of all nations to watch the greatest athletes in the world. Why can't we just enjoy it?
The Olympics can be an excellent plattform for athletes to voice their opinion and protest against grievances and discrimination. Also, whether you like it or not, the Olympics are always political and not just a sport event people can enjoy
Indeed dont worry. Lack of education and awareness can be solved by... Education and awareness. I'll never fully understand same sex attraction and I might never get used to see two men kissing in the street but I respect their choice and I can only be impressed at how fiercely they strugtle to reach equal treatment. Luckily things are moving ahead in most parts of the world(?). It is only a matter of time until the rest catches up.
Putin is most likely a smart person altough he's corrupt and in line with private and/or religious interests. Once his electorate is better educated and has a different views on such topics as gay and women rights or just plain out respect, he will most likely correct his politic agenda.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
In some portions of the US, Gay sex is actually illegal through sodomy laws.
Also if you want a Russian example, Police have been known to ignore/not prosecute crimes committed against gays.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
I don't think that "normal" is really relevant when sexuality is concerned. Or actually, ever. Why is it relevant if what someone does is the same that everyone else does, as long as it does not hurt anyone? There are situations where it is blurry if someone is hurt or not, and then there are obvious ones.
A pedophile can probably not do anything about feeling attracted to children, and as long as it stays at that it is not problematic. It only becomes problematic if he wants to act on that attraction, and then only because that hurts the children.
On the other hand, a gay person can have gay sex without hurting anyone, because the other person involved is a consenting adult too. Thus, while the impulse situation might be similar (and is actually similar to heterosexuals to, as noone can choose who he is attracted to), as soon as it comes to actually acting on that impulse the two are widely different.
And yes, gay people are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they are not allowed to marry the person they want to marry (at least in most places), which is the relevant thing here.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
I doubt the media is trying to label gay as "good", just as equal. I don't think any sexuality is "good", it just...is.
And there is a difference. It is what happens if you act on those impulses. If a pedophile acts on his attractions, he hurts a child. If a homosexual acts on his attractions, nothing bad happens. Thus, there is a difference.
If a pedophile can not control who he is attracted to, he will still realize that acting on that attraction is a bad thing, and ethically wrong, because he would hurt a child. Thus, being a pedophile is not bad, it is probably a pretty hard situation to be in. Being a practicing pedophile on the other hand IS bad.
While being a practicing homosexual hurts noone, and thus is not bad. As a result, there is no reason to put the homosexual through the hardship of denying his sexuality and having to control his impulses when there is no negative result to acting on that attraction.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
And as I and several others have pointed out there's a massive difference. Please check your ignorance in at the door
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
And as I and several others have pointed out there's a massive difference. Please check your ignorance in at the door
No, all you did is insult people and tell them to educate themselves... stop posting shit.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Which in a society means it prohibits being gay. If you cannot portray being gay as positive or even normal then you effectively make it illegal in the public eye, yet it's fine to portray being gay as evil/bad/wrong etc. Yeah it doesn't say being gay is illegal, it just saying if you're gay you're dead to society shut up and disappear from our view.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
There is a difference though. Even if a pedophile doesn't break the law regarding the age of consent, their sexual preference is for people who could never give that age of consent. Besides, to say being gay is the same thing as being a pedophile is a deliberately inflammatory thing to say. The same could be said of straight people, surely.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
And as I and several others have pointed out there's a massive difference. Please check your ignorance in at the door
No, all you did is insult people and tell them to educate themselves... stop posting shit.
Forgive me if I'm not rainbows and flowers to someone telling me pedophilia and homosexuality are the same.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
In some portions of the US, Gay sex is actually illegal through sodomy laws.
Also if you want a Russian example, Police have been known to ignore/not prosecute crimes committed against gays.
Those in the US are the once in a life time enforced laws usually made long ago usually in the 1800's, similar to how in Virginia it's illegal for an unmarried woman to live in the same place as an unmarried man, although that law is sometimes used to kick bad tenant out. The problem with US laws is that once they are on the books it takes alot to take them off even when they become archaic often they are just ignored even though they are still on the books.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
And as I and several others have pointed out there's a massive difference. Please check your ignorance in at the door
No, all you did is insult people and tell them to educate themselves... stop posting shit.
Forgive me if I'm not rainbows and flowers to someone telling me pedophilia and homosexuality are the same.
So you admit you're full of shit and didn't actually point out anything. Glad we cleared that up. It's ok, I forgive you since I'm not really surprised by this coming from you, just make sure it doesn't happen again.
P.S. someone using an abstracted argument involving pedophelia to point out fallacious arguments doesn't mean they condone pedophelia(being the same as homosexuality was never stipulated, only in regards to the portrayal). Reprimanding someone as such is purposeful dishonesty or being an idiot.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
And as I and several others have pointed out there's a massive difference. Please check your ignorance in at the door
No, all you did is insult people and tell them to educate themselves... stop posting shit.
Forgive me if I'm not rainbows and flowers to someone telling me pedophilia and homosexuality are the same.
So you admit you're full of shit and didn't actually point out anything. Glad we cleared that up. It's ok, I forgive you since I'm not really surprised by this coming from you, just make sure it doesn't happen again.
I quite clearly pointed out that the difference is informed consent. At this stage it's clear you have problems with basic reading. Go on, go back and look.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
And as I and several others have pointed out there's a massive difference. Please check your ignorance in at the door
No, all you did is insult people and tell them to educate themselves... stop posting shit.
Forgive me if I'm not rainbows and flowers to someone telling me pedophilia and homosexuality are the same.
So you admit you're full of shit and didn't actually point out anything. Glad we cleared that up. It's ok, I forgive you since I'm not really surprised by this coming from you, just make sure it doesn't happen again.
I quite clearly pointed out that the difference is informed consent. At this stage it's clear you have problems with basic reading. Go on, go back and look.
You said the difference is informed consent for gay vs straight. You can't be serious right now....
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Which in a society means it prohibits being gay. If you cannot portray being gay as positive or even normal then you effectively make it illegal in the public eye, yet it's fine to portray being gay as evil/bad/wrong etc. Yeah it doesn't say being gay is illegal, it just saying if you're gay you're dead to society shut up and disappear from our view.
It's saying if you're gay, keep it to yourself. No one wants to know. They're not in gay people's bedrooms policing them or sending them to mental institutions. So I disagree that they're prohibiting people from being gay.
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:
On August 03 2013 01:23 theballzack wrote: Thank god Russia is standing up to the gays. Most people are blind to what is happening because of all the propaganda constantly bombarding you about supporting gay rights and marriage but they are slowly seeping into American culture and taking masculinity out of the norm. People need to understand that it is not normal to be gay, it is normal to be straight but the line is being severely blurred. American men are already facing a lot of social issues and i hope that other countries take Russia's hint on these gay issues and take them out of the media.
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
And as I and several others have pointed out there's a massive difference. Please check your ignorance in at the door
No, all you did is insult people and tell them to educate themselves... stop posting shit.
Forgive me if I'm not rainbows and flowers to someone telling me pedophilia and homosexuality are the same.
So you admit you're full of shit and didn't actually point out anything. Glad we cleared that up. It's ok, I forgive you since I'm not really surprised by this coming from you, just make sure it doesn't happen again.
I quite clearly pointed out that the difference is informed consent. At this stage it's clear you have problems with basic reading. Go on, go back and look.
I brought up the example of a pedophile not violating age of consent laws. Suppose the pedophile only masturbates to drawings. So what's the difference? Both deviate away from typical sexual norms.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
Umm we're posting on an internet forum. There is no progress here, only hypocrisy.
Russia is a pretty racist country. I don't know people are surprised about this. This kind of stuff is pretty typical down there and it's just embarrassing that a modern country like Russia is still like this in this time of age.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
Umm we're posting on an internet forum. There is no progress here, only hypocrisy.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
Umm we're posting on an internet forum. There is no progress here, only hypocrisy.
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
Umm we're posting on an internet forum. There is no progress here, only hypocrisy.
So then why are you even posting?
Only because I do not like seeing hypocrisy.
But you've already said that there can be no progress, only hypocrisy. Is this a tacit admission that you are being a hypocrite?
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
Umm we're posting on an internet forum. There is no progress here, only hypocrisy.
So then why are you even posting?
Only because I do not like seeing hypocrisy.
Contributing to hypocricy because you dont like hypocrisy is hyprocitical
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
Umm we're posting on an internet forum. There is no progress here, only hypocrisy.
So you didn't answer my point, what countries laws are worse then Russia's that are particular to the LGBT community and are from the counties in which people are complaining about it?
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
Umm we're posting on an internet forum. There is no progress here, only hypocrisy.
So then why are you even posting?
Only because I do not like seeing hypocrisy.
So you say nothing will change because it's the Internet so you'll try to change things on the Internet. Unless all you want to do is rage against hypocrisy on the Internet without any intention of changing things.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On August 03 2013 02:18 Zuxo wrote: Threads like this really bring out all the bigots and assholes in the gaming community. Sad that there are so many of them :/
It also brings out a lot of the hypocrisy in the progressive side; "they're only intolerant because of fucking religion!" Neither sides perfect, one just has the moral highground, so to speak.
Nice equivalence. Are the gay rights proponents using violence? If not, then the gay rights proponents definitely have the high ground.
At this point I'm beginning to believe people like T.O.P. just don't want to have a debate, they ignore all arguments refuting their points and keep prattling on about their ignorance.
It amazes me how you can keep a bigoted opinion when presented with reason and facts. I guess some people are just too afraid of the unknown and would rather oppress harmless people then face their own fears.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Which in a society means it prohibits being gay. If you cannot portray being gay as positive or even normal then you effectively make it illegal in the public eye, yet it's fine to portray being gay as evil/bad/wrong etc. Yeah it doesn't say being gay is illegal, it just saying if you're gay you're dead to society shut up and disappear from our view.
It's saying if you're gay, keep it to yourself. No one wants to know. They're not in gay people's bedrooms policing them or sending them to mental institutions. So I disagree that they're prohibiting people from being gay.
On August 03 2013 01:32 MidKnight wrote: [quote] Unfortunately homosexuals/transgender people are all grouped into the same "pedophiles/zoophiles" group and they all "need mental help and stay away from our children" etc.
What's the difference between homosexuals and the above 2 groups? They're all sexual preferences. If being gay is normal then can being a pedophile can be considered normal as long as they don't violate the age of consent law?
On August 03 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote: [quote]
So your stance is that gays should be treated like 2nd class citizens, yes?
2nd class citizens? What aren't gays allowed to do that straight men can do?
I'm anticipating marriage, but gay men are allowed to marry women.
The difference is (informed) consent and you've been on this site long enough to know that, so I assume you're being wilfully offensive.
And if you're asking the difference between a straight and gay person, you've not read the op or anything
In short, please engage your brain before typing such tripe.
No I'm asking why the media is trying to label being gay as a good thing while labeling pedophiles as a evil. Because I just pointed out, there's no difference.
And as I and several others have pointed out there's a massive difference. Please check your ignorance in at the door
No, all you did is insult people and tell them to educate themselves... stop posting shit.
Forgive me if I'm not rainbows and flowers to someone telling me pedophilia and homosexuality are the same.
So you admit you're full of shit and didn't actually point out anything. Glad we cleared that up. It's ok, I forgive you since I'm not really surprised by this coming from you, just make sure it doesn't happen again.
I quite clearly pointed out that the difference is informed consent. At this stage it's clear you have problems with basic reading. Go on, go back and look.
I brought up the example of a pedophile not violating age of consent laws. Suppose the pedophile only masturbates to drawings. So what's the difference? Both deviate away from typical sexual norms.
I see a lot of people make these kind of claims. "Be gay, just don't get in our face with it". Well, the reason people "get in your face" is because there's a huge imbalance in the view of homosexuals right now. They ARE being regarded as "abnormal disgusting people with mental issues" in a lot of places in the world. This sort of movement is trying to change that and make you realize that there's nothing fundamentally different about them, they just feel attraction towards the same sex. Maybe it's not "natural" (whatever constitutes as natural to you anyway), but it happens.
In most of these places, a gay couple could NOT hold hands in public, for example, and not be discriminated against. If you say things like "Oh look, what a cute couple" whenever you see a straight couple holding hands, but feel it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals when they show same exact affection, you ARE being intolerant and lack empathy and understanding. "Have your dirty gay sex, but don't expect equality" is not tolerance or understanding, it's just pretense to try and sound rational and tolerant.
On August 03 2013 03:14 G3CKO wrote: Russia is a pretty racist country. I don't know people are surprised about this. This kind of stuff is pretty typical down there and it's just embarrassing that a modern country like Russia is still like this in this time of age.
Yes, Russia is racist country, no question about that, here is recent survey about accepting gays in the world for example: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/ However Russia is god damn big country. I am quite certain that people from eastern parts of Russia are much much more against gays than people who have live in big cities like St. Petersburg.
But to be honest, I would not call Russia modern country. They have had really really shity past, before Putin and after the fall on Communism shit really hit the fan in late 90s. They are progressing forward, but are still quite far away from western standards. It is just part of their culture, they will change due to influences in couple of decades or so.
As for boycoting olympics, heh, China had olympics and no country boycoted if I am not mistaken? Why this sould b any different?
On August 03 2013 02:48 T.O.P. wrote: “The corresponding law doesn't forbid non-traditional orientation, but other things: propaganda, involvement of minors and the youth.”
What the law prohibits is not that you can't be gay. It just says you can't advertise that being gay is acceptable.
Yes. An such law is not only dumb, but also discriminatory.
There are laws in many countries far worse than that, including many U.S. states, why does the rest of the world get to impose their morals on Russia.
just because there are worse laws, doesnt mean that people should criticize this particular law in russia.
if you want, you can point out some of the laws you hate the most and i will bash them for you.
I never said anything about criticizing, everyone can criticize whatever they want, and it's perfectly right to criticize this. A lot of this thread talks about boycotting, or international pressure for them to change the law, I'm pointing out a lot of people have no moral ground to be making such demands when they have even worse laws at home.
So because hypocrisy is a thing fuck progress anywhere? Anyways the subject is about LGBT communities and thus the laws particular to the LGBT community there aren't many worse laws out of the nations complaining. Plus Russia as the sweet sauce of being particular violent against the LGBT community and then not punishing those people committing acts of violence.
Umm we're posting on an internet forum. There is no progress here, only hypocrisy.
So then why are you even posting?
Only because I do not like seeing hypocrisy.
But you've already said that there can be no progress, only hypocrisy. Is this a tacit admission that you are being a hypocrite?
The statement "There can be no progress, only hypocrisy" means to say among the 2 objects, being progress and hypocrisy, only one of them "exists" here, that doesn't mean everything here is hypocrisy.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Fundamental difference is pedophilia is attraction based on Age and homosexuality is attraction based on Gender. The only way they are alike is that they are forms of attraction. But then so is being Straight. Anyways he's trying to use words to describe fallacies but not to actually refute key points in an argument legitimately, but only to use a word in an argument ie the ad populum. It's clear he has no intention to argue to change minds he's just wants the moral high ground for himself.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
please do not include me in this "public" whoes perception you are dictating
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Fundamental difference is pedophilia is attraction based on Age and homosexuality is attraction based on Gender. The only way they are alike is that they are forms of attraction. But then so is being Straight. Anyways he's trying to use words to describe fallacies but not to actually refute key points in an argument legitimately only to use a word in an argument ie the ad populum it's clear he has no intention to argue to change minds he's just wants the moral high ground for himself.
Yes because I am on the same side as you in regards to the actual issue of gay rights, and the only thing I am attempting to point out are inconsistencies in your, and others' arguments. (For the argument earlier in the thread, the unbased assumptions being made). Of course I do not address the points to change your mind when I agree with the points themselves.
To address the point you're mentioning. When I argue that a certain assumption might not necessarily be right, and 3 people tells me "no, A leads to B, I know it." There is nothing for me to refute, since I can't prove a negative.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
A lot of this has to do with the inherently problematic nature of pedophilic material; the vast majority of it is created alongside the exploitation of those unable to give consent. It's nice to pretend that pedophiles are sitting behind closed doors and pleasuring themselves to mere illustrations, but, given what we know in terms of the proliferation of child pornography, this is not the case. In short, the practice of pedophilia is closely enough tied to exploitation that tolerance of it is highly questionable, considerably more so than any concerns in regards to homosexuality.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
A lot of this has to do with the inherently problematic nature of pedophilic material; the vast majority of it is created alongside the exploitation of those unable to give consent. It's nice to pretend that pedophiles are sitting behind closed doors and pleasuring themselves to mere illustrations, but, given what we know in terms of the proliferation of child pornography, this is not the case. In short, the practice of pedophilia is closely enough tied to exploitation that tolerance of it is highly questionable, considerably more so than any concerns in regards to homosexuality.
Yes, and I agree that pedophelia is more problematic than homosexuality from a pragmatic viewpoint, which you are taking here. However, the equivocation was based on a moral viewpoint, why is one group persecuted for their natural (I assume I am fair in assuming this is near consensus that sexual orientation is natural and not chosen) desires, while another is not, even when the people themselves (consuming the troublesome materials you mention) are doing nothing wrong,
Asking pedophilic people to not view material that satifies them to reduce the people harms seems fairly akin to asking gays to stay in the closet for the betterment of society (which is partially the case in Russia, since they prefer closeted gays with children than happy married gays.)
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
A lot of this has to do with the inherently problematic nature of pedophilic material; the vast majority of it is created alongside the exploitation of those unable to give consent. It's nice to pretend that pedophiles are sitting behind closed doors and pleasuring themselves to mere illustrations, but, given what we know in terms of the proliferation of child pornography, this is not the case. In short, the practice of pedophilia is closely enough tied to exploitation that tolerance of it is highly questionable, considerably more so than any concerns in regards to homosexuality.
Yes, and I agree that pedophelia is more problematic than homosexuality from a pragmatic viewpoint, which you are taking here. However, the equivocation was based on a moral viewpoint, why is one group persecuted for their natural (I assume I am fair in assuming this is near consensus that sexual orientation is natural and not chosen) desires, while another is not, even when the people themselves (consuming the troublesome materials you mention) are doing nothing wrong,
Asking pedophilic people to not view material that satifies them to reduce the people harms seems fairly akin to asking gays to stay in the closet for the betterment of society (which is partially the case in Russia, since they prefer closeted gays with children than happy married gays.)
The standard for "harm" is rather different between the viewing of pedophilic material and the open practice of homosexuality, due in large part to the prevalence of exploitation in pedophilia. We "know" that the creation of pedophilic materials and its according encouragement through consumption leads to further exploitation; the genesis of child pornography rings on the internet and the ubiquity of terms like "lolita" in cyberspace are pretty good indications of this. On the other hand, there is little to no evidence that the open practice and expression of homosexuality leads to any palpable societal harm. It is this difference that effectively negates practically every equation.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
A lot of this has to do with the inherently problematic nature of pedophilic material; the vast majority of it is created alongside the exploitation of those unable to give consent. It's nice to pretend that pedophiles are sitting behind closed doors and pleasuring themselves to mere illustrations, but, given what we know in terms of the proliferation of child pornography, this is not the case. In short, the practice of pedophilia is closely enough tied to exploitation that tolerance of it is highly questionable, considerably more so than any concerns in regards to homosexuality.
This is as absurd as people claiming that gay people are rapists.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
A lot of this has to do with the inherently problematic nature of pedophilic material; the vast majority of it is created alongside the exploitation of those unable to give consent. It's nice to pretend that pedophiles are sitting behind closed doors and pleasuring themselves to mere illustrations, but, given what we know in terms of the proliferation of child pornography, this is not the case. In short, the practice of pedophilia is closely enough tied to exploitation that tolerance of it is highly questionable, considerably more so than any concerns in regards to homosexuality.
This is as absurd as people claiming that gay people are rapists.
Only if you have a vested interest in maintaining a comparison that is entirely toothless.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
A lot of this has to do with the inherently problematic nature of pedophilic material; the vast majority of it is created alongside the exploitation of those unable to give consent. It's nice to pretend that pedophiles are sitting behind closed doors and pleasuring themselves to mere illustrations, but, given what we know in terms of the proliferation of child pornography, this is not the case. In short, the practice of pedophilia is closely enough tied to exploitation that tolerance of it is highly questionable, considerably more so than any concerns in regards to homosexuality.
Yes, and I agree that pedophelia is more problematic than homosexuality from a pragmatic viewpoint, which you are taking here. However, the equivocation was based on a moral viewpoint, why is one group persecuted for their natural (I assume I am fair in assuming this is near consensus that sexual orientation is natural and not chosen) desires, while another is not, even when the people themselves (consuming the troublesome materials you mention) are doing nothing wrong,
Asking pedophilic people to not view material that satifies them to reduce the people harms seems fairly akin to asking gays to stay in the closet for the betterment of society (which is partially the case in Russia, since they prefer closeted gays with children than happy married gays.)
Gay people are not simply asked to stay in the closet. The negative propaganda against homosexuals is still perfectly legal (and for the most part encouraged) while the defense of homosexuals is illegal. Therefore the law is not meant to simply protect the general population's sensibilities as you imply (if that were true then all talk about homesecuality whether pro or anti would be forbidden), but to promote a state view that homosexuals are less human then heterosexuals. If you see nothing wrong with that then I guess there is nothing left to argue about.
On August 03 2013 04:00 Shiragaku wrote: If they are cracking down on gay propaganda, I hope that they also crack down on lesbian pornography just to have some consistency.
if holding hands in public is gay propaganda. then lesbian pornography is gay propaganda.
The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
Some things are just objectively wrong. Denying harmless people happiness is one of those things.
Relativistic moralism is stupid. You can't shake off cannibalism by saying "Well, it's just their culture!".
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
No, but anyone with good knowledge of moral philosphy knows that EVERY system of moral philosphy besides reltivism have huge internal problems. People are relucatant to accept relativism because it doesnt give You any answers and it deprives You of Your moral high ground. Relativism is sad. But its the only way that makes sense.
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
No, but anyone with good knowledge of moral philosphy knows that EVERY system of moral philosphy besides reltivism have huge internal problems. People are relucatant to accept relativism because it doesnt give You any answers and it deprives You of Your moral high ground. Relativism is sad. But its the only way that makes sense.
This is not true though. The field of moral philosophy is full of disagreement, so much so that landing on any singular concept requires a fair bit of footwork, surely more so than merely saying "relativism is the only way." Check out Frogrubdown's thread on the subject for a nice write up.
The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
Some things are just objectively wrong. Denying harmless people happiness is one of those things.
Relativistic moralism is stupid. You can't shake off cannibalism by saying "Well, it's just their culture!".
You dont know what You are talking about. Saying i dont have moral high ground over cannibal is one thing. It doesnt mean i am gona accept his views and let him eat people.
It is quite simple to build a general ethical construct without being retardedly relativistic.
For a discussion to make any sense, you need a common set of axioms, and then you can derive from that. Going about this way is the only rational way. This has little to do with culture, your basic axioms can be very simple things that everyone agrees upon. For example something like "Hurting people is bad". You don't really need a lot more then that. In some cases, you get grey situations where it is not entirely obvious if something is hurting someone or not. In which case you can debate. But in many cases the result is obvious. A gay guy fucking another guy hurts noone. Thus it is not bad. Oppressing that guy hurt him for no positive result. Thus it is bad. See how this easily follows out of a simple axiom that i think most people would agree upon, and did not require any culture except accepting rationality to solve problems.
Of course, if you dislike the idea of rationality, then this won't work. But in that case there is really not a lot of use in a debate anyways, since at that point there is no way to get a real result anyways.
The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
Some things are just objectively wrong. Denying harmless people happiness is one of those things.
Relativistic moralism is stupid. You can't shake off cannibalism by saying "Well, it's just their culture!".
You dont know what You are talking about. Saying i dont have moral high ground over cannibal is one thing. It doesnt mean i am gona accept his views and let him eat people.
But we do have the moral highground over anti-gay people for the simple reason that there factually is nothing wrong with homosexuality. There is not a single argument in favor of being anti-gay that holds water.
It's the same as having the moral highground over people who believe burning every second child gives them access to heaven. It's factually wrong.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
A lot of this has to do with the inherently problematic nature of pedophilic material; the vast majority of it is created alongside the exploitation of those unable to give consent. It's nice to pretend that pedophiles are sitting behind closed doors and pleasuring themselves to mere illustrations, but, given what we know in terms of the proliferation of child pornography, this is not the case. In short, the practice of pedophilia is closely enough tied to exploitation that tolerance of it is highly questionable, considerably more so than any concerns in regards to homosexuality.
Yes, and I agree that pedophelia is more problematic than homosexuality from a pragmatic viewpoint, which you are taking here. However, the equivocation was based on a moral viewpoint, why is one group persecuted for their natural (I assume I am fair in assuming this is near consensus that sexual orientation is natural and not chosen) desires, while another is not, even when the people themselves (consuming the troublesome materials you mention) are doing nothing wrong,
Asking pedophilic people to not view material that satifies them to reduce the people harms seems fairly akin to asking gays to stay in the closet for the betterment of society (which is partially the case in Russia, since they prefer closeted gays with children than happy married gays.)
Gay people are not simply asked to stay in the closet. The negative propaganda against homosexuals is still perfectly legal (and for the most part encouraged) while the defense of homosexuals is illegal. Therefore the law is not meant to simply protect the general population's sensibilities as you imply (if that were true then all talk about homesecuality whether pro or anti would be forbidden), but to promote a state view that homosexuals are less human then heterosexuals. If you see nothing wrong with that then I guess there is nothing left to argue about.
Thanks you for perfectly portraying exactly what I was talking about, the absolute disregard for logic and intellectual honesty shown by some people here. The entire point of the comparison is "Why are we trying to make pedophilic people less than human, given xyz similarities they have to homosexuals, when WE KNOW HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN"T BE TREATED AS LESS THAN HUMAN".
You cannot take a tiny supporting piece of an argument, pretend it is the key to the whole thing, warp it into something indefensible, bash that, then proclaim the moral high ground.
Tell me how gay people not simply being asked to stay in the closet in any way even reduces the validity of what I said, or better yet, how it's even relevant.
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
No, but anyone with good knowledge of moral philosphy knows that EVERY system of moral philosphy besides reltivism have huge internal problems. People are relucatant to accept relativism because it doesnt give You any answers and it deprives You of Your moral high ground. Relativism is sad. But its the only way that makes sense.
This is not true though. The field of moral philosophy is full of disagreement, so much so that landing on any singular concept requires a fair bit of footwork, surely more so than merely saying "relativism is the only way." Check out Frogrubdown's thread on the subject for a nice write up.
And here i am again....i have major in philosophy, after 4th year of studying (i think), i told myself that i wont waste anymore time with ethics and aesthetics. But now i am (again) arguing with strangers over internet...fogive me....I simply think that world would be much nicer place if everyone would droped moral high ground. You might not agree with me (most people dont), but i really thought about it for a long time.
"Why are we trying to make pedophilic people less than human, given xyz similarities they have to homosexuals, when WE KNOW HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN"T BE TREATED AS LESS THAN HUMAN".
Simply being a pedophile is no grounds for hate, as I'm pretty fucking sure people do not chose to be a pedophile (plus simply being attracted to children is not harmful in and of itself). What is wrong is acting on it.
Acting on your homosexuality is not wrong because it doesn't harm anyone. That's the difference.
"Why are we trying to make pedophilic people less than human, given xyz similarities they have to homosexuals, when WE KNOW HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN"T BE TREATED AS LESS THAN HUMAN".
Simply being a pedophile is no grounds for hate, as I'm pretty fucking sure people do not chose to be a pedophile. What is wrong is acting on your pedophilia.
Acting on your homosexuality is not wrong because it doesn't harm anyone. That's the difference.
People are arguing that simply being a pedophile IS grounds for hate, because unless you supress it completely, it is hurting others (viewing material in their own home still counts since the making of the material caused people to be hurt). They are for the descrimination of pedophiles for this reason.
This is not clear cut right or wrong, hense there is a discussion.
Most people believe the descrimination is reasonable, for the reason that it is overall better for society. So the question is, how is this different than descriminating against gays, if the majority of Russians think them being suppressed is better for THEIR society.
Disclaimer: In this thread all I have tried to do is clear up arguments and argue against people who misrepresent others. There's no logic behind responding to posts like this one attacking me personnally (And presuming I side with the homophobic because I do not join in the circlejerk) as I do not present my point of view.
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
No, but anyone with good knowledge of moral philosphy knows that EVERY system of moral philosphy besides reltivism have huge internal problems. People are relucatant to accept relativism because it doesnt give You any answers and it deprives You of Your moral high ground. Relativism is sad. But its the only way that makes sense.
This is not true though. The field of moral philosophy is full of disagreement, so much so that landing on any singular concept requires a fair bit of footwork, surely more so than merely saying "relativism is the only way." Check out Frogrubdown's thread on the subject for a nice write up.
And here i am again....i have major in philosophy, after 4th year of studying (i think), i told myself that i wont waste anymore time with ethics and aesthetics. But now i am (again) arguing with strangers over internet...fogive me....I simply think that world would be much nicer place if everyone would droped moral high ground. You might not agree with me (most people dont), but i really thought about it for a long time.
you have a major if philosophy but you don't think that people who think its okay to have sex with 12 year olds are worse than those that don't?
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
No, but anyone with good knowledge of moral philosphy knows that EVERY system of moral philosphy besides reltivism have huge internal problems. People are relucatant to accept relativism because it doesnt give You any answers and it deprives You of Your moral high ground. Relativism is sad. But its the only way that makes sense.
This is not true though. The field of moral philosophy is full of disagreement, so much so that landing on any singular concept requires a fair bit of footwork, surely more so than merely saying "relativism is the only way." Check out Frogrubdown's thread on the subject for a nice write up.
And here i am again....i have major in philosophy, after 4th year of studying (i think), i told myself that i wont waste anymore time with ethics and aesthetics. But now i am (again) arguing with strangers over internet...fogive me....I simply think that world would be much nicer place if everyone would droped moral high ground. You might not agree with me (most people dont), but i really thought about it for a long time.
you have a major if philosophy but you don't think that people who think its okay to have sex with 12 year olds are worse than those that don't?
I do despise it (pedohiles), i think its harmful to society, i think it should be punishable. But i do accept the fact that my views are product of my cultural heritage. The fact that someone have different cultural heritage doesnt mean i have to let him do whatever he pleases.
"Why are we trying to make pedophilic people less than human, given xyz similarities they have to homosexuals, when WE KNOW HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN"T BE TREATED AS LESS THAN HUMAN".
Simply being a pedophile is no grounds for hate, as I'm pretty fucking sure people do not chose to be a pedophile. What is wrong is acting on your pedophilia.
Acting on your homosexuality is not wrong because it doesn't harm anyone. That's the difference.
People are arguing that simply being a pedophile IS grounds for hate, because unless you supress it completely, it is hurting others (viewing material in their own home still counts since the making of the material caused people to be hurt). They are for the descrimination of pedophiles for this reason.
This is not clear cut right or wrong, hense there is a discussion.
It depends on the material being viewed. I have no problem with someone viewing lolicon stuff. I have a problem with someone viewing porn involving real children. As those are getting hurt in the production of it.
As said before, the logically consistent position to have is that being pedophile in itself is not bad, though probably a really hard situation to be in. Acting on it, or watching stuff involving children getting hurt is. Some people have other opinions. I disagree with them. A lot of the problem here stems from the confusion regarding what being a pedophile actually means. Most people assume that a pedophile is someone that molest children, while it actually just means someone that is sexually attracted to children, which is slightly different.
Along the same lines, being gay is not wrong. A gay man having sex with another gay man is not wrong. A gay man raping another man, whether gay or not, is wrong. A straight man being straight is not wrong. A straight man having sex with a women, no matter what they do as long as both consent to it, is still not wrong. A straight man raping a women is wrong. However, the pedophile does not have that option of having sex with a child without it being morally wrong since there is no way to have sex with a child that does not hurt it.
I think you are trying to form this weird argument that assumes that everyone who is not you has the exact same opinion and are arguing against inconsistency in that opinion that is actually a lot of different opinions held by a lot of different people, some of which are irrational.
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
No, but anyone with good knowledge of moral philosphy knows that EVERY system of moral philosphy besides reltivism have huge internal problems. People are relucatant to accept relativism because it doesnt give You any answers and it deprives You of Your moral high ground. Relativism is sad. But its the only way that makes sense.
This is not true though. The field of moral philosophy is full of disagreement, so much so that landing on any singular concept requires a fair bit of footwork, surely more so than merely saying "relativism is the only way." Check out Frogrubdown's thread on the subject for a nice write up.
And here i am again....i have major in philosophy, after 4th year of studying (i think), i told myself that i wont waste anymore time with ethics and aesthetics. But now i am (again) arguing with strangers over internet...fogive me....I simply think that world would be much nicer place if everyone would droped moral high ground. You might not agree with me (most people dont), but i really thought about it for a long time.
you have a major if philosophy but you don't think that people who think its okay to have sex with 12 year olds are worse than those that don't?
I do despise it (pedohiles), i think its harmful to society, i think it should be punishable. But i do accept the fact that my views are product of my cultural heritage. The fact that someone have different cultural heritage doesnt mean i have to let him do whatever he pleases.
okay but having sex with minors incapable of making informed consent is always wrong regardless of cultural heritage
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
No, but anyone with good knowledge of moral philosphy knows that EVERY system of moral philosphy besides reltivism have huge internal problems. People are relucatant to accept relativism because it doesnt give You any answers and it deprives You of Your moral high ground. Relativism is sad. But its the only way that makes sense.
This is not true though. The field of moral philosophy is full of disagreement, so much so that landing on any singular concept requires a fair bit of footwork, surely more so than merely saying "relativism is the only way." Check out Frogrubdown's thread on the subject for a nice write up.
And here i am again....i have major in philosophy, after 4th year of studying (i think), i told myself that i wont waste anymore time with ethics and aesthetics. But now i am (again) arguing with strangers over internet...fogive me....I simply think that world would be much nicer place if everyone would droped moral high ground. You might not agree with me (most people dont), but i really thought about it for a long time.
you have a major if philosophy but you don't think that people who think its okay to have sex with 12 year olds are worse than those that don't?
I do despise it (pedohiles), i think its harmful to society, i think it should be punishable. But i do accept the fact that my views are product of my cultural heritage. The fact that someone have different cultural heritage doesnt mean i have to let him do whatever he pleases.
You really don't think your views are formed by reasoning and logic as well? Sure, some of these trickier things, for example, age of consent, I believe is mostly cultural. In most places it's 18, in some it's 16 etc. I think the difference is pretty marginal. But some subjects have derived from common sense and the universal "truths", if you wanna call it that, about ourselves.
Drawing pedophilia into this discussion is such a lame argument.
This is not about sexual preference, it's about gender discrimination. The difference between a heterosexual and a heterosexual pedophile is the age of consent, as defined by law, same in Russia as everywhere else. Making this different when it's people of the same sex has nothing to do with their sexual preference, but all with that of the people who made this law.
I like the Games, but I hope they get boycotted this time around, whether this will end up being enforced or not. It's a backward law that has nothing to do with mutual understanding in the spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. If that's your "culture", then don't apply for hosting them.
On August 03 2013 04:28 Silvanel wrote: The problem is this is not about right and wrong. The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
I would love if people would finnaly acknoweldged it. Say: "We want Russia to comply with OUR World View rather than with ONE AND ONLY PROPER World View.
Its ok if You want people to think like You, its natural. But theres no right and wrong in morality,no good and bad. Only "our" and "theirs".
Relativistic? Yes. Sadly its the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy.
Edit: This is in response to all people claiming its WRONG to prosecute homosexuals (or any behavior for that matter).
Simply saying that relativism is the only thing that makes sense in moral philosophy does not make it true.
No, but anyone with good knowledge of moral philosphy knows that EVERY system of moral philosphy besides reltivism have huge internal problems. People are relucatant to accept relativism because it doesnt give You any answers and it deprives You of Your moral high ground. Relativism is sad. But its the only way that makes sense.
This is not true though. The field of moral philosophy is full of disagreement, so much so that landing on any singular concept requires a fair bit of footwork, surely more so than merely saying "relativism is the only way." Check out Frogrubdown's thread on the subject for a nice write up.
And here i am again....i have major in philosophy, after 4th year of studying (i think), i told myself that i wont waste anymore time with ethics and aesthetics. But now i am (again) arguing with strangers over internet...fogive me....I simply think that world would be much nicer place if everyone would droped moral high ground. You might not agree with me (most people dont), but i really thought about it for a long time.
Actually, the people criticizing Russia's anti-gay laws do have the moral high ground, since all other things being equal the removal of these laws would result in less harm done to others.
Haha, we have a bunch of hateful/censor laws passed this year, not to mention multi-billion corruption with little to none official investigation. "Gay propaganda law" is the least problem here lol.
On August 03 2013 06:06 laegoose wrote: Haha, we have a bunch of hateful/censor laws passed this year, not to mention multi-billion corruption with little to none official investigation. "Gay propaganda law" is the least problem here lol.
what are the other problems? ill bash on all your bad laws. this one is just the one im aware of right now.
On August 03 2013 06:06 laegoose wrote: Haha, we have a bunch of hateful/censor laws passed this year, not to mention multi-billion corruption with little to none official investigation. "Gay propaganda law" is the least problem here lol.
a violation of human rights should always be taken very seriously, regardless of other circumstances
On August 03 2013 06:06 laegoose wrote: Haha, we have a bunch of hateful/censor laws passed this year, not to mention multi-billion corruption with little to none official investigation. "Gay propaganda law" is the least problem here lol.
what are the other problems? ill bash on all your bad laws. this one is just the one im aware of right now.
Major internet providers are obliged to block access to sites that have suicide propaganda (youtube blocked because of '20 stupid ways to die' video), drugs propaganda/usage instructions (some EVE forum, because they have stimulators). From August 1st music rightholders can send requests to block sites that have illegal content, no courts involved. Pokerstars blocked just because they can (even though online-poker is legal... yet). The only good thing is that law is enforced badly and actually these blocks happen only in some cities and sometimes get reversed.
No public religion-bashing, up to few years jail time penalty.
No orphan adoption by US citizens and gay parents, given orphans have insanely bad conditions here and mostly become criminals.
Ah, fuck it, they say Russia has strong economy/GDP, but all money are owned by oligarchs and Mr. President friends in government, and you may have heard what happened with Mr. Navalny who investigated some multi-billion frauds.
On August 03 2013 06:06 laegoose wrote: Haha, we have a bunch of hateful/censor laws passed this year, not to mention multi-billion corruption with little to none official investigation. "Gay propaganda law" is the least problem here lol.
a violation of human rights should always be taken very seriously, regardless of other circumstances
There are too many problems in Russia, to take all of them seriously and remain sane.
The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
Some things are just objectively wrong. Denying harmless people happiness is one of those things.
Relativistic moralism is stupid. You can't shake off cannibalism by saying "Well, it's just their culture!".
And here you get caught on your own rope. There is nothing objectively wrong with eating people who were not killed for the puprpose of eating them, yet our culture gets apeshit insane everytime it is mentioned. The same applies to protected sex between sibling, for examples. There are some things that even the most tolerant common variaty of our culture considers intolerable, even though there is no transcendental reason for it. For these and similar reasons I firmly believe that unbiased deduction of universal minimal morality is impossible by human beings.
I am not supporting an anti-gay measures, ever, period. But I hate when a good cause is argued for using flawed arguments because it undermines the cause.
On August 03 2013 03:16 marvellosity wrote: No, I didn't. There were 2 parts of his post and I responded to both. This shouldn't be so hard.
At the very least it's interesting you tried to pull me up earlier in the thread, them every single other respondent disagreed with you.
Then you're fine with the guy equating homosexuality and pedophilia, but repeatedly attack the person pulling him up on it.
Then you keep making this fallacious argument about gay rights elsewhere in the world.
Pretty clear what your agenda is in this thread.
Earlier in the thread amounted to 3 people making the same assumptions and me telling you guys its not necessarily true. Don't add ad populum to your list of problems.
I'm fine with the guy equating? Ya, cause his argument was made to point out inconsistent arguments in this thread. Then I attack you for pulling him up on it cause what you say makes no sense and deserve to be called out. I have not made a single comment regarding my beliefs (and believe it or not I am extremely socially liberal).
I'm glad my agenda is clear, too bad I can't clear your shit fast enough.
On what basis is the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia at all intellectually honest?
Only on the basis of public perseption in regards to what is ok behind closed doors with no laws compromised. Since gays and pedophiles both deviate from the "norm", in a situation where neither breaks any laws to satisfy themselves, why is one group persecuted here for their orientation while the other is not, when neither is doing anything wrong.
A lot of this has to do with the inherently problematic nature of pedophilic material; the vast majority of it is created alongside the exploitation of those unable to give consent. It's nice to pretend that pedophiles are sitting behind closed doors and pleasuring themselves to mere illustrations, but, given what we know in terms of the proliferation of child pornography, this is not the case. In short, the practice of pedophilia is closely enough tied to exploitation that tolerance of it is highly questionable, considerably more so than any concerns in regards to homosexuality.
Yes, and I agree that pedophelia is more problematic than homosexuality from a pragmatic viewpoint, which you are taking here. However, the equivocation was based on a moral viewpoint, why is one group persecuted for their natural (I assume I am fair in assuming this is near consensus that sexual orientation is natural and not chosen) desires, while another is not, even when the people themselves (consuming the troublesome materials you mention) are doing nothing wrong,
Asking pedophilic people to not view material that satifies them to reduce the people harms seems fairly akin to asking gays to stay in the closet for the betterment of society (which is partially the case in Russia, since they prefer closeted gays with children than happy married gays.)
Gay people are not simply asked to stay in the closet. The negative propaganda against homosexuals is still perfectly legal (and for the most part encouraged) while the defense of homosexuals is illegal. Therefore the law is not meant to simply protect the general population's sensibilities as you imply (if that were true then all talk about homesecuality whether pro or anti would be forbidden), but to promote a state view that homosexuals are less human then heterosexuals. If you see nothing wrong with that then I guess there is nothing left to argue about.
Thanks you for perfectly portraying exactly what I was talking about, the absolute disregard for logic and intellectual honesty shown by some people here. The entire point of the comparison is "Why are we trying to make pedophilic people less than human, given xyz similarities they have to homosexuals, when WE KNOW HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN"T BE TREATED AS LESS THAN HUMAN".
You cannot take a tiny supporting piece of an argument, pretend it is the key to the whole thing, warp it into something indefensible, bash that, then proclaim the moral high ground.
Tell me how gay people not simply being asked to stay in the closet in any way even reduces the validity of what I said, or better yet, how it's even relevant.
First of all no one is trying to argue that any kind of "sexual perversions" makes the person "less human" be it your run of the mill standard foot fetish or you being turned on by goats. What everyone has said is that most civilized societies have outlawed pedophilia not because pedophiles are somehow "worse" then homosexuals but simply for the fact that one party in that interaction is being treated unfair since children do not have the maturity to make informed decisions about their sexual preferences. Since in regular homosexual relationships both parties are on equal footing comparing pedophilia and homosexuality makes no sense and it will not cause any sort of slippery slope (bigamy laws are certainly different but that's a different argument) The laws against homosexuality are inherently unfair because they have nothing to do with protecting the parties involved. They are simply laws of a religious nature being forced onto a supposed secular society.
The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
Some things are just objectively wrong. Denying harmless people happiness is one of those things.
Relativistic moralism is stupid. You can't shake off cannibalism by saying "Well, it's just their culture!".
And here you get caught on your own rope. There is nothing objectively wrong with eating people who were not killed for the puprpose of eating them, yet our culture gets apeshit insane everytime it is mentioned. The same applies to protected sex between sibling, for examples. There are some things that even the most tolerant common variaty of our culture considers intolerable, even though there is no transcendental reason for it. For these and similar reasons I firmly believe that unbiased deduction of universal minimal morality is impossible by human beings.
I am not supporting an anti-gay measures, ever, period. But I hate when a good cause is argued for using flawed arguments because it undermines the cause.
Actually you're pulling the same thing you're criticizing.
The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
Some things are just objectively wrong. Denying harmless people happiness is one of those things.
Relativistic moralism is stupid. You can't shake off cannibalism by saying "Well, it's just their culture!".
And here you get caught on your own rope. There is nothing objectively wrong with eating people who were not killed for the puprpose of eating them, yet our culture gets apeshit insane everytime it is mentioned. The same applies to protected sex between sibling, for examples. There are some things that even the most tolerant common variaty of our culture considers intolerable, even though there is no transcendental reason for it. For these and similar reasons I firmly believe that unbiased deduction of universal minimal morality is impossible by human beings.
I am not supporting an anti-gay measures, ever, period. But I hate when a good cause is argued for using flawed arguments because it undermines the cause.
Actually you're pulling the same thing you're criticizing.
No, I am not. He argues that there is objective morality and according to that, the law in discussion is proven wrong. I try to argue that such objective morality is impossible to define and thus other means of supporting our common view have to be put forward.
The perception of right and wrong is part of Your cultural inhertiance,it is based in society You live, in Your experience with it. There are many societies in the world in which sex with 12 year old is right. Do You think its ok? I dont think so. Me neither. We have different cultural experience than them. It is obvious that we want our views to prevail, but we are not any more right than they are.
Some things are just objectively wrong. Denying harmless people happiness is one of those things.
Relativistic moralism is stupid. You can't shake off cannibalism by saying "Well, it's just their culture!".
And here you get caught on your own rope. There is nothing objectively wrong with eating people who were not killed for the puprpose of eating them, yet our culture gets apeshit insane everytime it is mentioned. The same applies to protected sex between sibling, for examples. There are some things that even the most tolerant common variaty of our culture considers intolerable, even though there is no transcendental reason for it. For these and similar reasons I firmly believe that unbiased deduction of universal minimal morality is impossible by human beings.
I am not supporting an anti-gay measures, ever, period. But I hate when a good cause is argued for using flawed arguments because it undermines the cause.
Actually you're pulling the same thing you're criticizing.
No, I am not. He argues that there is objective morality and according to that, the law in discussion is proven wrong. I try to argue that such objective morality is impossible to define and thus other means of supporting our common view have to be put forward.
You don't have to have a rigorous argument for the existence of objective morality, you just need "common sense" (sorry for putting it that way, but there's no other way to say it - I don't mean to be offensive).
You yourself were careful to avoid supporting the killing of other human beings in your argument for why cannibalism could be considered morally okay. I'm curious whether you would be willing to go all the way, because if you do it almost becomes a reductio ad absurdum.
Lets take the extreme scenario. Someone who lives at their home and hasn't harmed anyone. Would you say that there is any justifiable moral reason why someone should be allowed to rape, torture, and then kill that person? Do you think that your inability to rigorously prove the existence of objective morality significantly changes the moral calculus involved here?
I don't think it does. 99.99% of all sane people on this planet will agree that that is wrong, and those that don't have a serious mental disorder and should be either treated for their condition or isolated in jail. And if you want a reason why that is I can give you one - we all share the same DNA, and the same brain, so it stands to reason that we all want very similar things and desire to live life happy and free. Of course there will be variation, but there are some fundamental things that, while you can't have 100% certainty (because it doesn't exist anywhere except mathematics), you have overwhelming, 99.99999...% certainty that everyone shares the same views and holds the same values. We all have pain receptors, no one desires extreme pain or death because humans are hard wired that way (assuming that death was final; i.e. no afterlife).
We aren't talking about some complex moral issue that could have people arguing from both sides. It is simply immoral to oppress people based on their sexual orientation, which was chosen for them (through no fault of their own) at birth. The reasons are because it inflicts serious psychological trauma which leads to suicide in many cases, so I see it as a form of mental torture.
The only so-called "argument" from the other side is based on ignorance and religious dogma. I assume you and everyone else here (well almost everyone) are intelligent enough that further explanations are not required.
On August 03 2013 06:06 laegoose wrote: Haha, we have a bunch of hateful/censor laws passed this year, not to mention multi-billion corruption with little to none official investigation. "Gay propaganda law" is the least problem here lol.
what are the other problems? ill bash on all your bad laws. this one is just the one im aware of right now.
Major internet providers are obliged to block access to sites that have suicide propaganda (youtube blocked because of '20 stupid ways to die' video), drugs propaganda/usage instructions (some EVE forum, because they have stimulators). From August 1st music rightholders can send requests to block sites that have illegal content, no courts involved. Pokerstars blocked just because they can (even though online-poker is legal... yet). The only good thing is that law is enforced badly and actually these blocks happen only in some cities and sometimes get reversed.
No public religion-bashing, up to few years jail time penalty.
No orphan adoption by US citizens and gay parents, given orphans have insanely bad conditions here and mostly become criminals.
Ah, fuck it, they say Russia has strong economy/GDP, but all money are owned by oligarchs and Mr. President friends in government, and you may have heard what happened with Mr. Navalny who investigated some multi-billion frauds.
man all those laws are bad! fuck all legislature that impedes on human rights! EDIT: we should make a thread of each one individually tho cause this thread is only talking about the one.
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.
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.
Prime directives only apply to other species. The rest of this paragraph is just platitudinal relativist bullshit. We can't stand by while goons in evil governments 'experiment' on our fellow human beings. We are not the servants or property of the government and political borders do not inhibit humanity.
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.
Prime directives only apply to other species. The rest of this paragraph is just platitudinal relativist bullshit. We can't stand by while goons in evil governments 'experiment' on our fellow human beings. We are not the servants or property of the government and political borders do not inhibit humanity.
Just because I have different values than someone doesn't mean I have to impose "the right way" through economic or military action. The only way we find the best approach is trying all sorts of models and laws, see how they work out.
Western society has arrived where we currently are though Medieval monarchies, powerful Catholic clergy, industrial revolutions, imperial aspirations, 2 world wars, a great depression, witnessing collapse of communism and information/internet age. What is happening in Russia will be either an important lesson for them or wary example for us. If current western ideology was adopted throughout the whole world there would be few examples of how not to do things and potential problems/solutions for where we are now.
I am empathetic to Russia's cause because I flip it imagining that Islamist extremists take action without debate because they genuinely believe that removing our leadership and brainwashing our citizens is for our own salvation and happiness.
I'm sorry I used prime directive in my post, I just feel less educated/intelligent than you. I can't begin to comprehend what "platitudinal relativist bullshit" is and any debate I offer will be laced with anecdotal and pop culture references.
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.
Prime directives only apply to other species. The rest of this paragraph is just platitudinal relativist bullshit. We can't stand by while goons in evil governments 'experiment' on our fellow human beings. We are not the servants or property of the government and political borders do not inhibit humanity.
Just because I have different values than someone doesn't mean I have to impose "the right way" through economic or military action. The only way we find the best approach is trying all sorts of models and laws, see how they work out.
Western society has arrived where we currently are though Medieval monarchies, powerful Catholic clergy, industrial revolutions, imperial aspirations, 2 world wars, a great depression, witnessing collapse of communism and information/internet age. What is happening in Russia will be either an important lesson for them or wary example for us. If current western ideology was adopted throughout the whole world there would be few examples of how not to do things and potential problems/solutions for where we are now.
I am empathetic to Russia's cause because I flip it imagining that Islamist extremists take action without debate because they genuinely believe that removing our leadership and brainwashing our citizens is for our own salvation and happiness.
I'm sorry I used prime directive in my post, I just feel less educated/intelligent than you. I can't begin to comprehend what "platitudinal relativist bullshit" is and any debate I offer will be laced with anecdotal and pop culture references.
You're actually trying to justify the assault and possible murder of innocent people... because otherwise we wouldn't have enough diversity in world government... well, I don't even know how to respond to that.
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.
Prime directives only apply to other species. The rest of this paragraph is just platitudinal relativist bullshit. We can't stand by while goons in evil governments 'experiment' on our fellow human beings. We are not the servants or property of the government and political borders do not inhibit humanity.
Just because I have different values than someone doesn't mean I have to impose "the right way" through economic or military action. The only way we find the best approach is trying all sorts of models and laws, see how they work out.
Western society has arrived where we currently are though Medieval monarchies, powerful Catholic clergy, industrial revolutions, imperial aspirations, 2 world wars, a great depression, witnessing collapse of communism and information/internet age. What is happening in Russia will be either an important lesson for them or wary example for us. If current western ideology was adopted throughout the whole world there would be few examples of how not to do things and potential problems/solutions for where we are now.
I am empathetic to Russia's cause because I flip it imagining that Islamist extremists take action without debate because they genuinely believe that removing our leadership and brainwashing our citizens is for our own salvation and happiness.
I'm sorry I used prime directive in my post, I just feel less educated/intelligent than you. I can't begin to comprehend what "platitudinal relativist bullshit" is and any debate I offer will be laced with anecdotal and pop culture references.
You're actually trying to justify the assault and possible murder of innocent people... because otherwise we wouldn't have enough diversity in world government... well, I don't even know how to respond to that.
I'm seen my share of stupid strawmen and you come pretty close to taking the cake.
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.
Prime directives only apply to other species. The rest of this paragraph is just platitudinal relativist bullshit. We can't stand by while goons in evil governments 'experiment' on our fellow human beings. We are not the servants or property of the government and political borders do not inhibit humanity.
Just because I have different values than someone doesn't mean I have to impose "the right way" through economic or military action. The only way we find the best approach is trying all sorts of models and laws, see how they work out.
Western society has arrived where we currently are though Medieval monarchies, powerful Catholic clergy, industrial revolutions, imperial aspirations, 2 world wars, a great depression, witnessing collapse of communism and information/internet age. What is happening in Russia will be either an important lesson for them or wary example for us. If current western ideology was adopted throughout the whole world there would be few examples of how not to do things and potential problems/solutions for where we are now.
I am empathetic to Russia's cause because I flip it imagining that Islamist extremists take action without debate because they genuinely believe that removing our leadership and brainwashing our citizens is for our own salvation and happiness.
I'm sorry I used prime directive in my post, I just feel less educated/intelligent than you. I can't begin to comprehend what "platitudinal relativist bullshit" is and any debate I offer will be laced with anecdotal and pop culture references.
You're actually trying to justify the assault and possible murder of innocent people... because otherwise we wouldn't have enough diversity in world government... well, I don't even know how to respond to that.
I'm seen my share of stupid strawmen and you come pretty close to taking the cake.
Just because I have different values than someone doesn't mean I have to impose "the right way" through economic or military action. The only way we find the best approach is trying all sorts of models and laws, see how they work out.
Western society has arrived where we currently are though Medieval monarchies, powerful Catholic clergy, industrial revolutions, imperial aspirations, 2 world wars, a great depression, witnessing collapse of communism and information/internet age. What is happening in Russia will be either an important lesson for them or wary example for us. If current western ideology was adopted throughout the whole world there would be few examples of how not to do things and potential problems/solutions for where we are now.
Yep, totally a strawman to suggest that he's justifying the sacrifice of innocent lives so that we may 'experiment' and have plenty of diversity. But you know what, it's okay. Because at least the http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/senate-resolution-will-call-on-olympics-officials-to-opposesenate recognizes how important it is to oppose this law. Sorry, I prefer not to experiment with human lives so that we might find the "best" approach. If the best approach ever involves murdering and imprisoning innocent people, then count me the hell out.
I really don't see the problem here at all. Russia is it's own independent country that can make their own rules and laws. No one is forcing anyone else to visit or stay in Russia. If you oppose its laws or beliefs, stay the hell out. Those whining about how they cannot be openly gay and proud in a place where they are clearly hated are selfish and narrow minded. The idea of visiting a foreign country and shoving your own beliefs and lifestyle down their throats where it is NOT welcome or wanted is daft. I applaud Russia for being so open and giving fair warning to those who think giving the middle finger to the host countries laws will be given a free pass. You may not agree with their laws, however you must abide by them or simply not visit the country. It's not a hard concept. Stop trying to shove your own personal beliefs on an entire country of people who obviously live a very different lifestyle than your own. For a group of people that call themselves liberals, they sure are narrow minded and oblivious to others cultures and way of life. Respect their way of life in their country just as they would in ours.
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?
I'm pretty sad that I joked earlier that the only way this thread could go more downhill is when the gay = paedophilia discussion occurred. Gargh
Also the complete ignorance of the topic's remit.
I'm not looking to trample on Russian sovereignty, we're discussing the merit of awarding such a prestigious event, in essence a propaganda tool to that country. Same with the Qatar 2022 World Cup which is also a farce.
Should the Olympics be entirely apolitical and just about sport? Have these events become too bloated, too self-important, or should they be more active in political affairs?
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that. By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of society are non-human any more?
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that. By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of society are non-human any more?
wat
Yes, who made you responsible to speak for all human beings?
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that. By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of society are non-human any more?
wat
Yes, who made you responsible to speak for all human beings?
To quote myself from what, 4 posts back?
'I'm not looking to trample on Russian sovereignty, we're discussing the merit of awarding such a prestigious event, in essence a propaganda tool to that country. Same with the Qatar 2022 World Cup which is also a farce.
Should the Olympics be entirely apolitical and just about sport? Have these events become too bloated, too self-important, or should they be more active in political affairs?'
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that. By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of society are non-human any more?
wat
Yes, who made you responsible to speak for all human beings?
To quote myself from what, 4 posts back?
'I'm not looking to trample on Russian sovereignty, we're discussing the merit of awarding such a prestigious event, in essence a propaganda tool to that country. Same with the Qatar 2022 World Cup which is also a farce.
Should the Olympics be entirely apolitical and just about sport? Have these events become too bloated, too self-important, or should they be more active in political affairs?'
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
They're interesting avenues of discussion, but no more relevant here than in the LGBT thread.
I mean if people want to neglect the Olympics/IOC role, what they feel it is, what they feel it should be then by all means but it makes this thread somewhat redundant.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Go. Play sport. Win medal. Go home with medal. Celebrate. Then go to pride parade.
Really. Sexual preference has no business at the olympic games, so I don't know why people have their knickers in a knot. If it does somehow, PLEASE explain to me how being straight or gay helps you run/ski/skate faster or better than your competitor.
Do I think it wrong that Russia has such a law? Yes. Do I give a fuck that the games are affected by it? No. Because the athletes attending aren't there to draw attention to their sexual preference! They are there for a difference reason entirely! If an athlete wants to break the law and make themselves into a political activist because of their preference, so be it. It's another country. Abide by their laws. Don't plan to abide by the countries laws, then be prepared to pay the consequences. It would be no different than a Dutchman trying to justify to a New York cop how buying a street corner hooker should be Ok because it is OK in his native country to hire prostitutes. DIFFERENT COUNTRY. DIFFERENT LAWS.
Boycotting is not an option. At this level of competition, if there were 100 speed skaters, and 50 boycotted - the other 50 would thank them for not competing and for the easier competition and the win. It doesn't matter about perception. If you spent 10 years working up to the point of qualifying to get into the olympics, you damn well aren't going to care about one of your competitors not showing up because they wanted to boycott.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
You, guys, defending homosexuals despite you not homosexuals. its just new trend to cry "freedom,democracy" without detecting real reasons of happenings. Just trash talk about not important things and try to look sympathetic to homosexuals. Look at your past generations, they was create your countries and wealth, and they support homosexuals ? Not, learn something by them.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
Would you think slavery was okay if the majority of people were in favour of it?
On August 03 2013 14:20 Rosie wrote: You, guys, defending homosexuals despite you not homosexuals. its just new trend to cry "freedom,democracy" without detecting real reasons of happenings. Just trash talk about not important things and try to look sympathetic to homosexuals. Look at your past generations, they was create your countries and wealth, and they support homosexuals ? Not, learn something by them.
Yes, and while we're at it, let's go back to when black people and women had no rights, too. It's always a good idea to look to the past concerning social issues.
On August 03 2013 14:20 Rosie wrote: You, guys, defending homosexuals despite you not homosexuals. its just new trend to cry "freedom,democracy" without detecting real reasons of happenings. Just trash talk about not important things and try to look sympathetic to homosexuals. Look at your past generations, they was create your countries and wealth, and they support homosexuals ? Not, learn something by them.
K i'll listen to my past generation and not heed the words of a dam godless commie.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Some of the best Olympic moments were made by those that chose to compete despite the country hosting having extreme prejudice against them. The best example is that of Jessie Owens' golds despite the Nazi's belief in racial superiority. Suppose he chose to boycott the event instead or tried to actively protest against Nazism and got arrested in Berlin, then I doubt we consider him to be one of the greatest Olympians. His act of winning has much more impact in my opinion.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please.
where did anyone say they were speaking for the singaporean government or the city-state of singapore
or even presuming to speak for anyone but themselves
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please. Or credentials of the USA having sovereignty over these nations.
And your credentials with the elected USA government.
My current knowledge is Singapore has a free trade agreement with the USA. That is all. Otherwise you are not entitled to speak on my behalf or that of my nation. I reserve that right for myself. Should either you or Mr. ComaDose continue to speak for me without my permission, I will not hesitate to take the appropriate measures to cease this illegal action.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please.
where did anyone say they were speaking for the singaporean government or the city-state of singapore
or even presuming to speak for anyone but themselves
You did when you claimed to speak for all human beings. Now, credentials.
Edit: I personally have made no nomination to either you or Mr. ComaDose to speak on my behalf regarding the nation of Russia's laws or handling of an international event known as the Olympics and I recommend you stop immediately.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please. Or credentials of the USA having sovereignty over these nations.
And your credentials with the elected USA government.
My current knowledge is Singapore has a free trade agreement with the USA. That is all. Otherwise you are not entitled to speak on my behalf or that of my nation. I reserve that right for myself. Should either you or Mr. ComaDose continue to speak for me without my permission, I will not hesitate to take the appropriate measures to cease this illegal action.
Listen, you are dodging the actual argument here. Just because someone wants to do something that doesn't mean everyone else should let them, otherwise you are saying that nobody should have stopped the holocaust.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
Would you think slavery was okay if the majority of people were in favour of it?
it was at one point :/
it is what it is, let them take care of it. letting all political bias aside, maybe russia just doesnt want olympic being used to push gay pride since majority is against it. its their home, let the people of that country do what it wants. doesnt matter how higher of a standard the others (non russia, like most here) thinks. in time, change will come i'm optimistic, it wont be pretty getting there but it'll get there. history repeats itself right? there were many sacrifices and there will be more.
i just think they should take care of themselves (with some help from human rights organizations) and i believe olympic can be used politically by individuals with strong passion towards LBGT, and majority of russia wants none of that since this movement has been getting attention for awhile now if i'm correct(hence the ban). perhaps the government is handling it wrong but its also wrong for everyone else to point fingers at russia's own business when you guys yourself (like usa) went through the same shit. like telling a kid how being a grown up is, the kid wont know until they go through it themselves.
People who mind how other people love and have sex are seriously fucked up, but those who are even more fucked up are those that think they can actually stop it. They don't seem to understand that it would take an extremely fascist system to reduce it (note, you can't stop it) and with that system in place it would pretty much mean the death of personal freedom
So is it worth it to kill personal freedom because of how some people choose to have sex and love?
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please. Or credentials of the USA having sovereignty over these nations.
And your credentials with the elected USA government.
My current knowledge is Singapore has a free trade agreement with the USA. That is all. Otherwise you are not entitled to speak on my behalf or that of my nation. I reserve that right for myself. Should either you or Mr. ComaDose continue to speak for me without my permission, I will not hesitate to take the appropriate measures to cease this illegal action.
Listen, you are dodging the actual argument here. Just because someone wants to do something that doesn't mean everyone else should let them, otherwise you are saying that nobody should have stopped the holocaust.
I agree this has gone beyond the OP and the discussion. You are not addressing the point I brought up either. That to my knowledge, neither Mr. ComaDose nor DeepElemBlues have the right to speak on behalf of all humanity unless they produce the appropriate documentation, I believe laws were broken.
Edit: Because they have gone beyond my back to claim to speak on my behalf by their claim that being human they can speak for all humans, when I, as a human being, clearly have not given such permission. Should they post sufficient evidence that my government has assigned said right to them, then I believe, yes, they do have that right to speak for me by virtue of a decision of my elected government.
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.
On August 03 2013 07:28 radscorpion9 wrote: We aren't talking about some complex moral issue that could have people arguing from both sides. It is simply immoral to oppress people based on their sexual orientation, which was chosen for them (through no fault of their own) at birth. The reasons are because it inflicts serious psychological trauma which leads to suicide in many cases, so I see it as a form of mental torture.
The only so-called "argument" from the other side is based on ignorance and religious dogma. I assume you and everyone else here (well almost everyone) are intelligent enough that further explanations are not required.
So I missed about 3 pages while sleeping, can I still go on with this line of argument?
I think that you see it as not being a complex moral issue, because you are a priori refusing to even look from the other side. Let me play a devil's advocate: this disucssion actually started from a talk about "hapiness" and how denying it to some people is universally wrong. Do you also think that hapiness can be measured objectively and universaly? I think that it is even easier to see in regard to hapiness than morality that it is not the case - people in different part of the world desire different things. Whereas healthcare and nutrition are somewhat universal to hapiness, people from less "developed" world could be quite puzzled about many goals that westerners pursue in their life, such as career growth and whatnot and I can imagine whole nations who would always unanimously consider any western high manager extremely unhappy, because he works 12 hours a day - while a large part of our culture sees such a "success" as almost the paramount of hapiness.
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?
Well, I can, in my head, it feels very simple, it's so natural that it brings anger whenever I think about the law. But I honestly don't know how much of that is just conditioning by the society that brought me up and I don't now how to justify imposing this view on other nation from a purely moral point of view, even though I would like to. The result of this thinking excersise is, that I would still like to live in a world, where such laws do not exists and I think it is pretty clear that making a high-visibility sports even that pretends to stand for values in Russia does not help that cause, and thus I oppose it, but the justifitcation really boils down to the original "I want it like that".
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please. Or credentials of the USA having sovereignty over these nations.
And your credentials with the elected USA government.
My current knowledge is Singapore has a free trade agreement with the USA. That is all. Otherwise you are not entitled to speak on my behalf or that of my nation. I reserve that right for myself. Should either you or Mr. ComaDose continue to speak for me without my permission, I will not hesitate to take the appropriate measures to cease this illegal action.
Listen, you are dodging the actual argument here. Just because someone wants to do something that doesn't mean everyone else should let them, otherwise you are saying that nobody should have stopped the holocaust.
I agree this has gone beyond the OP and the discussion. You are not addressing the point I brought up either. That to my knowledge, neither Mr. ComaDose nor DeepElemBlues have the right to speak on behalf of all humanity unless they produce the appropriate documentation, I believe laws were broken.
Edit: Because they have gone beyond my back to claim to speak on my behalf by their claim that being human they can speak for all humans, when I, as a human being, clearly have not given such permission. Should they post sufficient evidence that my government has assigned said right to them, then I believe, yes, they do have that right to speak for me by virtue of a decision of my elected government.
When you're ready to stop being facetious, could you please let me know by typing something in bold and underline?
I'm going to stop reading your posts in the meanwhile, but if you could do that that would be great.
Unless you genuinely think asking for "credentials" over and over again is a good way to discuss something? In which case I don't know how to help you. So I'm just going to assume you're being totally facetious.
On August 02 2013 07:40 shabby wrote: It is sad that Russia has laws like these, but tbh it has nothing to do with the Olympics. We had Olympics in Beijing i 2008 and they're arguably more backwards with womens rights, censorship etc. This is a sports event and nothing else, it is not in the Olympic committees (or the participating countries) place to push their political views on the host country. If you want to visit Russia and/or participate in their events, then you should adhere to their laws.
That being said, it is a principal thing for me, and I'd much like for everyone to be able to say and preach whatever they want.
I agree. If the olympics are held in a certain country, people and athletes have to adhere to the laws of that country, whether those are anti-gay laws, anti-free speech or whatever. Noone really seemed to mind the lack of free speech during the Beijing Olympics, so I don't really see the issue here.
In case you guys forgot, homosexuality is taboo and/or illegal in most of the world, just like abortion and euthanasia.
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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please.
where did anyone say they were speaking for the singaporean government or the city-state of singapore
or even presuming to speak for anyone but themselves
You did when you claimed to speak for all human beings. Now, credentials.
Edit: I personally have made no nomination to either you or Mr. ComaDose to speak on my behalf regarding the nation of Russia's laws or handling of an international event known as the Olympics and I recommend you stop immediately.
By this line of reasoning, where are the Russian government's credentials? Did they, individually or severally, create human beings from inanimate clay? Or are they mere mortal humans themselves? What gives them the right to oppress people for their sexuality? It is extremely arbitrary to claim that moral relativism applies at exactly the national level without providing some argument for why.
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?
Because the 'unhappiness' of the general Russian populace about homosexuals is based on nothing more than wind and air.
On August 03 2013 15:45 Gnaix wrote: Some of the best Olympic moments were made by those that chose to compete despite the country hosting having extreme prejudice against them. The best example is that of Jessie Owens' golds despite the Nazi's belief in racial superiority. Suppose he chose to boycott the event instead or tried to actively protest against Nazism and got arrested in Berlin, then I doubt we consider him to be one of the greatest Olympians. His act of winning has much more impact in my opinion.
Reasonable, albeit different. If you're gay, you aren't immediately visible as gay. Your win doesn't have that visceral visual impact, as an Owens win, especially with this law. On a level of personal satisfaction yes, or subsequent influence on your home nation if you reveal your sexuality on the talk show, you probably can change perceptions in the manner of which you speak.
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.
someone who doesnt understand what homosexuality is. glad you are happy to make a fool out of yourself.
On August 03 2013 12:22 ComaDose wrote: [quote] 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?
Please check your privilege, please state your credentials to speak for all humanity. Their government and their people have stated their desire to oppress gay people as you put it. They have put laws in place to reflect that.
By your post, what are you trying to say? Russian government with the support of Russian society are non-human because they "oppress gay people"?
I don't think that's what "check your privilege" means...
i don't think that's what "check your privilege" means
Please, don't play games with us. It is disrespectful of someone of such high standing. I have met many powerful people in my life, and when they speak they do speak for their people. Their will is the will of their people.
Again, credentials, please.
We're all human beings there's credentials.
People who are not only wrong but willfully wrong in a way destructive to others shouldn't get a free pass just because most of them think it's okay.
Credentials of my government giving you permission to speak on Singapore's behalf, please. Or credentials of the USA having sovereignty over these nations.
And your credentials with the elected USA government.
My current knowledge is Singapore has a free trade agreement with the USA. That is all. Otherwise you are not entitled to speak on my behalf or that of my nation. I reserve that right for myself. Should either you or Mr. ComaDose continue to speak for me without my permission, I will not hesitate to take the appropriate measures to cease this illegal action.
Listen, you are dodging the actual argument here. Just because someone wants to do something that doesn't mean everyone else should let them, otherwise you are saying that nobody should have stopped the holocaust.
I agree this has gone beyond the OP and the discussion. You are not addressing the point I brought up either. That to my knowledge, neither Mr. ComaDose nor DeepElemBlues have the right to speak on behalf of all humanity unless they produce the appropriate documentation, I believe laws were broken.
Edit: Because they have gone beyond my back to claim to speak on my behalf by their claim that being human they can speak for all humans, when I, as a human being, clearly have not given such permission. Should they post sufficient evidence that my government has assigned said right to them, then I believe, yes, they do have that right to speak for me by virtue of a decision of my elected government.
When you're ready to stop being facetious, could you please let me know by typing something in bold and underline?
I'm going to stop reading your posts in the meanwhile, but if you could do that that would be great.
Unless you genuinely think asking for "credentials" over and over again is a good way to discuss something? In which case I don't know how to help you. So I'm just going to assume you're being totally facetious.
Let me make this very simple to understand, I take my online identity and moral and political views seriously. These individuals claimed they speak for humanity. Ergo, their political/moral/etc views and positions regarding Russian laws are my positions as well.
By speaking "for humanity", these two individuals have claimed that they speak for the entire human race, of which I am a party of. They claim to speak for me. This is false and untrue. I am not party to any agreement to either individual(s)/legal entities operating under the TL identities of ComaDose or DeepElemBlues to represent my views in any matter at any point in time.
I intend to take the appropriate steps to ensure my identity is not fraudulently used.
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.
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.
On August 03 2013 21:05 marvellosity wrote: Can't tell if srs
Is this your first time debating on an online forum?
With all due respect, had the involved parties limited voicing their personal opinions, their immediate circle and that of verifiable sources (e.g. their newspapers, professors, etc), this incident would not be the state it is now. Given my future dealings with Russian elite, I cannot have such carte blanche claim to representing my political view unchallenged.
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?
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.
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 21:05 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.
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.
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.
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 21:05 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?
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 21:05 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 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 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 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".
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!
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
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.
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.
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?
On August 02 2013 07:06 imBLIND wrote: I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
the fuck bro This has nothing to do with the olympics, it has to do with freedom of speech and expression, and a homophobic asshat of a leader.
Because it fails to understand a big difference between the 2 situations. If you want make a nice analogy you should not replace gay with black in that story, but with another sexual orientation (for example pedofilism) Then it would make alot more sense already but that would not give a good outcome so people compare it with racism instead, i do understand why but it is not fair.
There is only one difference between black people and white people and that is the colour of their skin, the idea behind the fight against racism is that you should not judge people on the colour of their skin (over wich people have no influence themselves) but instead judge people on who they are and what actions they make. The difference between beeing gay and beeing straight is alot bigger then simply the colour of ones skin, it is one of the actions wich defines a part of who and what people are and the example of another sexual orientation makes this clear. Gays do have equall rights and opportunitys in this world,(at least in the netherlands and most other western countries as far as i can tell). From the outside people can often not even tell if someone is straight or gay and unless people want to be verry vocal about their sexual orientation and use it as a way to express their personality (something i personally dislike, wether they are gay or straight. i dont like a gay person talking constantly about their sexual orientation and experiences just as i dont like a straightt person who can talk about nothing else then his sexual adventures ) the difference does not need to have an impact on ones normal life. This much unlike the situation black people where in in the usa up to say 1970 (and even up till now in certain areas) and comparing the 2 imo does not do right to the struggle black people had to face. Will just close with saying that i do not have annything against gay or straight people (even though some people will think otherwise after reading this post) but comparing homofobia with racism does not feel right at all to me.
On August 04 2013 04:17 Rassy wrote: Because it fails to understand a big difference between the 2 situations. If you want make a nice analogy you should not replace gay with black in that story, but with another sexual orientation (for example pedofilism) Then it would make alot more sense already but that would not give a good outcome so people compare it with racism instead, i do understand why but it is not fair.
There is only one difference between black people and white people and that is the colour of their skin, the idea behind the fight against racism is that you should not judge people on the colour of their skin (over wich people have no influence themselves) but instead judge people on who they are and what actions they make. The difference between beeing gay and beeing straight is alot bigger then simply the colour of ones skin, it is one of the actions wich defines a part of who and what people are and the example of another sexual orientation makes this clear. Gays do have equall rights and opportunitys in this world,(at least in the netherlands and most other western countries as far as i can tell). From the outside people can often not even tell if someone is straight or gay and unless people want to be verry vocal about their sexual orientation and use it as a way to express their personality (something i personally dislike, wether they are gay or straight. i dont like a gay person talking constantly about their sexual orientation and experiences just as i dont like a straightt person who can talk about nothing else then his sexual adventures ) the difference does not need to have an impact on ones normal life. This much unlike the situation black people where in in the usa up to say 1970 (and even up till now in certain areas) and comparing the 2 imo does not do right to the struggle black people had to face. Will just close with saying that i do not have annything against gay or straight people (even though some people will think otherwise after reading this post) but comparing homofobia with racism does not feel right at all to me.
This seems like a meandering way to say that homophobia is marginally more acceptable than racism because black people have had a harder time of things. I don't buy it. Being gay and being black are indeed entirely different things, but when it comes to social justice and fostering attitudes of tolerance, there is a lot of crossover. It isn't racist to suggest this.
On August 04 2013 04:17 Rassy wrote: Because it fails to understand a big difference between the 2 situations. If you want make a nice analogy you should not replace gay with black in that story, but with another sexual orientation (for example pedofilism) Then it would make alot more sense already but that would not give a good outcome so people compare it with racism instead, i do understand why but it is not fair.
There is only one difference between black people and white people and that is the colour of their skin, the idea behind the fight against racism is that you should not judge people on the colour of their skin (over wich people have no influence themselves) but instead judge people on who they are and what actions they make. The difference between beeing gay and beeing straight is alot bigger then simply the colour of ones skin, it is one of the actions wich defines a part of who and what people are and the example of another sexual orientation makes this clear. Gays do have equall rights and opportunitys in this world,(at least in the netherlands and most other western countries as far as i can tell). From the outside people can often not even tell if someone is straight or gay and unless people want to be verry vocal about their sexual orientation and use it as a way to express their personality (something i personally dislike, wether they are gay or straight. i dont like a gay person talking constantly about their sexual orientation and experiences just as i dont like a straightt person who can talk about nothing else then his sexual adventures ) the difference does not need to have an impact on ones normal life. This much unlike the situation black people where in in the usa up to say 1970 (and even up till now in certain areas) and comparing the 2 imo does not do right to the struggle black people had to face. Will just close with saying that i do not have annything against gay or straight people (even though some people will think otherwise after reading this post) but comparing homofobia with racism does not feel right at all to me.
This is pretty offensive to me, given in large swathes of the world, homosexuals are routinely persecuted, tortured, and killed, often with state sanction and backing.
Sorry, what's your point again? Gays haven't suffered widespread slavery so their suffering is irrelevant? What?
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
Psychological exposure therapy taken to a societal level? I can accept that interpretation. Unfortunately it can become a negative experience for the population at large. Russia has had the "Pussy Riot"-case and several cases of demonstrations from homosexual groups around the last election. This law seems most of all like a calculated suppression of these people Putin does not like or it is a safeguard against these demonstrations becoming a problem, depending on which side you look at it from.
Russia and China are going very far in their "protection of cultural values" to differentiate themself from USA and to keep people from saying something negative about their heritage. It has also influenced several laws in Europe, including the british ISP laws. The main issue of cultural values is them getting put higher than anything in human right charters or constitutions. Cultural values has thus become a way to argue positively for any kind of censorship.
And don't think for a second that "for the children" or "against terrorists" are not cultural value arguments!
I wouldn't be suprised if we saw some incident at the russian olympics; it would be the perfect time for activists for exposure, the question is if they will be stopped in time or not.
It still seems to be unclear whether the anit-homosexuals law of Russia will be enforced, during the olympic games in sotschi, or not. This is the picture i get from our German media. While several newspaper's online services report that the law will be applied during the olympics those reports seem to be outdated. Serious sources report that there have been anouncements from "highest russian administration speakers" to not enforce the law and release a decret to limit the enforcement of the law.
Russia wants a controversial new law that prohibits positive statements about homosexuality in 2014 do not apply at the Olympic Winter Games in Sochi. "We are not interested to prevent our guests from enjoying the games, or to restrict their rights," said the spokesman of the responsible for the games Vice-government Dmitry Kozak.
The government in Moscow think about it, limiting the law by decree, the Cossack speaker on. A final decision has not yet been made. "I'm sure we can find a legally perfect solution."
Have received confirmation "of the highest government body" IOC Earlier, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had confirmed a commitment of the Russian government. "The IOC has received the highest government office in Russia assurances, is that the law those who participate in the games do not affect," said the IOC in Lausanne, on request, the news agency dpa.
"Sport is a human right" The IOC warned in a statement not to discriminate against homosexuals and thus violate the Olympic principles. "Sport is a human right and should be available to all regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation," said the IOC. "What we can do as a sports organization is to continue to work to ensure that no discrimination of athletes, officials, spectators and media games take place," it said in the statement.
Why only in Sochi?
Among human rights activists and representatives of gay organizations the assurance of alienation caused to the IOC. "Although this is a political gesture. However, it is legally impossible, this law off times just for the games," said the famous Russian gay activist Nikolai Alexeyev. "This requires a new decision of the Parliament." It is not clear why the law should not apply in Sochi, while it will continue to apply in the rest of the country against homosexuals.
President Vladimir Putin on 30 June signed a law that made positive statements about homosexuality punishable. It had been sharply criticized internationally. Critics regard this law as a clear form of discrimination. They also point out that the law any form of education is impossible. Proponents justify the law with the protection of children.
While it seems that russia is trying to not look overly medieval to the international community it has not shown a good effort to remove all doubts about its commitment to tolerate gay life. its like eating a cake and having it too. i guess that will work for everyone now. the goventment officials and sponsors will be able to reference the announcement to limit the enforcement of the law. while the traditionalists in russia will be kept calm by explaining that the law to fight homosexuals is still in effect. The main problem hence is that the mainstream does not care much for gays and that those people will be let down another time. But this is not a problem that we face in russia alone.
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
Psychological exposure therapy taken to a societal level? I can accept that interpretation. Unfortunately it can become a negative experience for the population at large. Russia has had the "Pussy Riot"-case and several cases of demonstrations from homosexual groups around the last election. This law seems most of all like a calculated suppression of these people Putin does not like or it is a safeguard against these demonstrations becoming a problem, depending on which side you look at it from.
Russia and China are going very far in their "protection of cultural values" to differentiate themself from USA and to keep people from saying something negative about their heritage. It has also influenced several laws in Europe, including the british ISP laws. The main issue of cultural values is them getting put higher than anything in human right charters or constitutions. Cultural values has thus become a way to argue positively for any kind of censorship.
And don't think for a second that "for the children" or "against terrorists" are not cultural value arguments!
Well what made the civil rights movement actually work in the US exposure though the television of how the south was handling blacks and although a ton of people in the rest of the US were racist they weren't sick the dogs and fire-hoses on black children racist. It was sickening for them to see it, it was their assistance and support around the nation plus the persistence of blacks to keep butting heads with the established south that made it work.
On August 02 2013 07:06 imBLIND wrote: I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
the fuck bro This has nothing to do with the olympics, it has to do with freedom of speech and expression, and a homophobic asshat of a leader.
lol ? russians homophobic ? seems like if you dont like something = you are scared of it
On August 02 2013 07:06 imBLIND wrote: I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
the fuck bro This has nothing to do with the olympics, it has to do with freedom of speech and expression, and a homophobic asshat of a leader.
lol ? russians homophobic ? seems like if you dont like something = you are scared of it
While not always true, disapproval and fear oftentimes go hand in hand.
On August 02 2013 07:06 imBLIND wrote: I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
the fuck bro This has nothing to do with the olympics, it has to do with freedom of speech and expression, and a homophobic asshat of a leader.
lol ? russians homophobic ? seems like if you dont like something = you are scared of it
While not always true, disapproval and fear oftentimes go hand in hand.
Why would you disapprove of something? Because you fear to where it leads.
On August 02 2013 07:06 imBLIND wrote: I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
the fuck bro This has nothing to do with the olympics, it has to do with freedom of speech and expression, and a homophobic asshat of a leader.
lol ? russians homophobic ? seems like if you dont like something = you are scared of it
While not always true, disapproval and fear oftentimes go hand in hand.
Why would you disapprove of something? Because you fear to where it leads.
lol ? you when you dont like a taste of ice-cream it means you are afraid of ice-cream ?
On August 02 2013 07:06 imBLIND wrote: I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
the fuck bro This has nothing to do with the olympics, it has to do with freedom of speech and expression, and a homophobic asshat of a leader.
lol ? russians homophobic ? seems like if you dont like something = you are scared of it
While not always true, disapproval and fear oftentimes go hand in hand.
Why would you disapprove of something? Because you fear to where it leads.
lol ? you when you dont like a taste of ice-cream it means you are afraid of ice-cream ?
Perhaps not, but when ones' dislike of ice-cream spills over into societal bans of ice cream eating, surely more than mere distaste is at work.
On August 02 2013 07:06 imBLIND wrote: I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
the fuck bro This has nothing to do with the olympics, it has to do with freedom of speech and expression, and a homophobic asshat of a leader.
lol ? russians homophobic ? seems like if you dont like something = you are scared of it
While not always true, disapproval and fear oftentimes go hand in hand.
Why would you disapprove of something? Because you fear to where it leads.
lol ? you when you dont like a taste of ice-cream it means you are afraid of ice-cream ?
I might not like chocolate icecream but that doesn't mean I think any less of people who do like it.
On August 02 2013 18:30 zbedlam wrote: I wonder if Russia would actually have the balls to arrest any visitors on the grounds of being gay. Don't see why they would do this, its a lose/lose situation for them.
They enforce it and anyone gets punished during the Olympics, they make themselves the public enemy for a lot of people. And if they don't enforce it properly then everyone including their own people will think they are full of it.
edit: Not to mention lost revenue, I can't imagine many gays or gay rights supporters will be going to the russian olympics. What the hell were they thinking.
On August 02 2013 07:06 imBLIND wrote: I guess I can see why they would not want gay symbols represented at the Olympics...I mean if it were me, I would be really annoyed if I saw gay pride posters everywhere when I'm trying to watch the sport. But either way, I think this law has the potential to turn into a shitstorm.
the fuck bro This has nothing to do with the olympics, it has to do with freedom of speech and expression, and a homophobic asshat of a leader.
lol ? russians homophobic ? seems like if you dont like something = you are scared of it
While not always true, disapproval and fear oftentimes go hand in hand.
Why would you disapprove of something? Because you fear to where it leads.
lol ? you when you dont like a taste of ice-cream it means you are afraid of ice-cream ?
Why do we taste food in order to assess if the food is edible and if it has the nutrients we seek. If you don't like the taste of the food your body fear that it's inedible and thus would do harm to your body. It's not entirely conscious but it's all the same.
I'd say that there is a difference between dislike and fear. Also, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Homophobia is commonly used not as being afraid of homosexuals, but for anyone that dislikes them, or hates them, or whatever negative emotion you want to use. It is a misnomer, but also not really problematic since everyone knows what you are talking about unless they are being facetious.
Guys, it seems that you don't really understand how Russian society functions. In Russia gays are viewed either on par with pedophiles or as freaks with serious mental disorder. It is prohibited to say even neutral things about gays in public, that is the law, which is supported by almost every Russian. Compared to that punishing gay propaganda during Olympics is actually quite mild.
On August 04 2013 08:04 Simberto wrote: I'd say that there is a difference between dislike and fear. Also, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Homophobia is commonly used not as being afraid of homosexuals, but for anyone that dislikes them, or hates them, or whatever negative emotion you want to use. It is a misnomer, but also not really problematic since everyone knows what you are talking about unless they are being facetious.
Homophobia isn't meant to imply fear of homosexuals, "phobia" is being used to show that this kind of discrimination is irrational because discriminating against people for something they can't control and aren't inflicting harm with their actions to anyone, is irrational.
A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.
I agree that it's not the best way to name it, but it does make some sense.
On August 04 2013 08:04 Alex1Sun wrote: Guys, it seems that you don't really understand how Russian society functions. In Russia gays are viewed either on par with pedophiles or as freaks with serious mental disorder. It is prohibited to say even neutral things about gays in public, that is the law, which is supported by almost every Russian. Compared to that punishing gay propaganda during Olympics is actually quite mild.
I don't give a fuck about Russian society as a whole, their issue to deal with.
On the other hand, the Olympics is essentially a symbol of prestige, a propaganda device for the host nation. I personally found the London ones nauseating, but that's me not being a nationalist person, perhaps others viewed it differently. Should it be entirely neutral politically, or be an agent of change?
If you want to make the the Olympics divorced from 'Western values' by all means do so, but to me given their huge financial backing from overwhelmingly Western companies it seems an odd distinction to make.
On August 04 2013 08:04 Alex1Sun wrote: Guys, it seems that you don't really understand how Russian society functions. In Russia gays are viewed either on par with pedophiles or as freaks with serious mental disorder. It is prohibited to say even neutral things about gays in public, that is the law, which is supported by almost every Russian. Compared to that punishing gay propaganda during Olympics is actually quite mild.
We're perfectly aware of this.
Apartheid South Africa was made an international pariah, there's not really much difference to me. Why treat one country in one way, and another in a completely different manner? (Rhetorical question before anyone raises an answer)
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
Psychological exposure therapy taken to a societal level? I can accept that interpretation. Unfortunately it can become a negative experience for the population at large. Russia has had the "Pussy Riot"-case and several cases of demonstrations from homosexual groups around the last election. This law seems most of all like a calculated suppression of these people Putin does not like or it is a safeguard against these demonstrations becoming a problem, depending on which side you look at it from.
Russia and China are going very far in their "protection of cultural values" to differentiate themself from USA and to keep people from saying something negative about their heritage. It has also influenced several laws in Europe, including the british ISP laws. The main issue of cultural values is them getting put higher than anything in human right charters or constitutions. Cultural values has thus become a way to argue positively for any kind of censorship.
And don't think for a second that "for the children" or "against terrorists" are not cultural value arguments!
Well what made the civil rights movement actually work in the US exposure though the television of how the south was handling blacks and although a ton of people in the rest of the US were racist they weren't sick the dogs and fire-hoses on black children racist. It was sickening for them to see it, it was their assistance and support around the nation plus the persistence of blacks to keep butting heads with the established south that made it work.
On August 04 2013 08:04 Alex1Sun wrote: Guys, it seems that you don't really understand how Russian society functions. In Russia gays are viewed either on par with pedophiles or as freaks with serious mental disorder. It is prohibited to say even neutral things about gays in public, that is the law, which is supported by almost every Russian. Compared to that punishing gay propaganda during Olympics is actually quite mild.
Its not that people dont understand it. People are aware of those views and reflect that on russian society. Its not the gays being pedophiles or freaks, its the russians being freaks with their heads up the ass with a serious mental disorder. we have old ppl here too that connect gays with all kind of things too. like incest or whatnot. they are being old and.. [oh so many words] but i d rather not say. they are CONCERNED. thats the word. old ppl are concerned about everything here.
I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any vote possible imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
i our area politicians have to put an effort into forming majorities for votes in important matters. where i live politicians dont just wake up to sit in a chair with some new motives every day.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
The LGBT rights have been moving towards normalisation through the last 30 years. It is not just a political votefishing expedition per se. The crux of the problem is that civil rights are to some degree uneven if marriage is not possible for gays and the government grants special possibilities to married couples. It is basically the same fight women, jews, blacks and romas have been through or are still going through.
Just politizising the problem is often a way to hide the real motives behind the opinion...
Btw. What you quoted holds this part about "...propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law". It is called a rubber paragraf and such paragrafs can almost always be abused by law enforcement. In this case "propaganda" could cover any speech related to sexuality with the possibility of ever reaching children or it can be specifically asking for people to become gays, when a child is present.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e.
What I'm only saying is:
1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays.
2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't.
My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e.
What I'm only saying is:
1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays.
2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't.
My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you don't agree with Russia go back and edit your post. the rest of this #1 and #2 is fluff that isn't (or at least shouldn't) related to what Russia has done, and is inconsequential.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e.
What I'm only saying is:
1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays.
2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't.
My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you don't agree with Russia go back and edit your post. the rest of this #1 and #2 is fluff that isn't (or at least shouldn't) related to what Russia has done, and is inconsequential.
No, I agree with Russia if they try to reduce the whole gay propaganda as it is an overspoken thing these days. That alone doesn't mean someone is homophobic though. The rest of my post was to clarify my previous post because you said things I didn't imply or say, so I tried to make myself clearer. I'll keep myself from further offtopic on unrelated to this topic matters.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e.
What I'm only saying is:
1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays.
2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't.
My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you don't agree with Russia go back and edit your post. the rest of this #1 and #2 is fluff that isn't (or at least shouldn't) related to what Russia has done, and is inconsequential.
No, I agree with Russia if they try to reduce the whole gay propaganda as it is an overspoken thing these days. That alone doesn't mean someone is homophobic though. The rest of my post was to clarify my previous post because you said things I didn't imply or say.
It pretty well does. Why would you make it illegal to speak unless you're afraid of its consequences or content?
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e.
What I'm only saying is:
1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays.
2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't.
My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you don't agree with Russia go back and edit your post. the rest of this #1 and #2 is fluff that isn't (or at least shouldn't) related to what Russia has done, and is inconsequential.
No, I agree with Russia if they try to reduce the whole gay propaganda as it is an overspoken thing these days. That alone doesn't mean someone is homophobic though. The rest of my post was to clarify my previous post because you said things I didn't imply or say.
It pretty well does. Why would you make it illegal to speak unless you're afraid of its consequences or content?
Probably because Russians are traditionalists in some cases like family values? Like the UK are traditionalists to have their monarchy around.
I just happen to agree with having less of the gay topic. Simple as that. About the show-off thing, I may have been wrong. Music nowadays shows off sexual content too, so that can be reduced like gay propaganda too regardless if it makes gays happy or not. This sexual orientation thing is blown out of proportion.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e.
What I'm only saying is:
1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays.
2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't.
My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you don't agree with Russia go back and edit your post. the rest of this #1 and #2 is fluff that isn't (or at least shouldn't) related to what Russia has done, and is inconsequential.
No, I agree with Russia if they try to reduce the whole gay propaganda as it is an overspoken thing these days. That alone doesn't mean someone is homophobic though. The rest of my post was to clarify my previous post because you said things I didn't imply or say.
It pretty well does. Why would you make it illegal to speak unless you're afraid of its consequences or content?
Probably because Russians are traditionalists in some cases like family values? Like the UK are traditionalists to have their monarchy around.
I just happen to agree with having less of the gay topic. Simple as that. About the show-off thing, I may have been wrong. Music nowadays shows off sexual content too, so that can be reduced like gay propaganda too regardless if it makes gays happy or not. This sexual orientation thing is blown out of proportion.
I can't even tell what you're talking about anymore...You're still avoiding your homophobia at any rate.
I mean you're really telling me it's ok to criminalize discussing sexuality in Russia, a traditional and conservative country, because in the US "this sexual orientation thing is blown out of proportion"? And you even go on to say that music should be regulated and content should be illegal because it shows off sexual content.
Essentially what it comes down to for you: gays aren't stoned and burned and KOS in america, so they should shut up and be grateful, and by the way we should shut down any progress attempting to be made in Russia because it's annoying over here in the Bay area.
Here's a tip: if you want "less of the gay topic" stop listening, stop talking, turn off the TV. TURN OFF THE TV. lol. Don't make freedom illegal.
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e.
What I'm only saying is:
1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays.
2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't.
My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic.
1. Except Russia isn't referring to politicians trying to bring gay voters into their ring, they quite literally mean saying anything about it at all -- let alone good. If you told a child the definition of homosexuality, you would literally be guilty of spreading gay propaganda to a minor. I don't think dictionaries are tools of propaganda, do you? By saying you agree with Russia, you have to accept this stance. Don't say you agree with Russia unless you're content with being viewed as a monumental bigot, because Russia has taken the stance of a monumental bigot.
If your concern really is with removing the gay rights movement from the media, then you should be upset with Russia. They could have just allowed the Pride House into the olympics. That would be uncontroversial, and would appear no where in the news. But they took the controversial, head-line grabbing route to put out their own anti-gay propaganda to the world and gave the finger to the gay community. You DO understand when you're discriminated against, treated as less than human, and deprived of basic human liberties your fellow heterosexual man has, you have a vested interest in getting support for your cause? So you should also understand that bigoted interests whom for whatever arbitrary reason are against gay rights share that same vested interested to rally support against gay rights. Regardless, BOTH sides lose their incentive when the gay community is literally just accepted as equal human beings and given their due rights and liberties.
2. I haven't seen heterosexuals show off their sexuality in parades, but I also haven't heard of heterosexuals being specifically targeted for violence and discrimination for the last few millennia either -- unless they' have and simply endured it with silence...? You realize how stupid that is to say, right? Which rights have you been deprived of recently because of your heterosexuality? Which large demographic of people hate you for your heterosexuality?
Your thought is a very convenient one when it's an issue which does not relate to you. But it relates to millions of others, and they are most certainly interested in keeping the issue alive. Just who are you to decide what an important topic should be to them? There are way more people interested in this topic than those such as yourself who aren't. I hope you aren't so arrogant to believe this world revolves around you?
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho.
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive.
Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer:
Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.
So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck.
You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e.
What I'm only saying is:
1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays.
2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't.
My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic.
1. Yeah, it's possible that some people use issues like that to help their political careers. So? Does that mean that the issue is diminished in any way? 2. Heterosexuals never had to face discrimination. A lot of people say shit like this "oh, I'm not saying they shouldn't have that dirty gay sex, I won't stop them, but just please stay away from me or our children". That's the problem. This isn't a tolerant stance and gay parades are trying to show that those people are not any different from you and me. Oh and btw I'm not saying you believe any of that, it's just that a lot of people do. Once we reach a point in our society where majority won't be appaled by homosexuality, there'll be no need for parades.
Do you get just as pissed off for people rallying for other issues? Do you get pissed off when, for example, students rally because education system sucks? "Oh those damn students and their constant need to try and make their lives better, I swear..". No one says that, right?
Please tell me any rally that happens every year like gay parades and appears on news. The gay right thing is irrelevant, the problem is it's too frequent in media for my taste. With the same reason, I don't wanna hear of Syria that much either. I understand things are real and serious, but repeating them as parrots isn't enough nor pleasure.
I understand some people don't agree, but this is me. No, the world doesn't revolve around me as one of you asked, but I think I have a right to express my opinion. No forces you to agree or do as I like.
On August 05 2013 02:11 darkness wrote: Please tell me any rally that happens every year like gay parades and appears on news. The gay right thing is irrelevant, the problem is it's too frequent in media for my taste. With the same reason, I don't wanna hear of Syria that much either. I understand things are real and serious, but repeating them as parrots isn't enough nor pleasure.
I understand some people don't agree, but this is me. No, the world doesn't revolve around me as one of you asked, but I think I have a right to express my opinion. No forces you to agree or do as I like.
What on earth are you blabbing on about? Since when are any gay pride rallies on TV or in the newspapers (except when morons in 3rd world countries are causing trouble at them)?
On August 05 2013 02:11 darkness wrote: Please tell me any rally that happens every year like gay parades and appears on news. The gay right thing is irrelevant, the problem is it's too frequent in media for my taste. With the same reason, I don't wanna hear of Syria that much either. I understand things are real and serious, but repeating them as parrots isn't enough nor pleasure.
I understand some people don't agree, but this is me. No, the world doesn't revolve around me as one of you asked, but I think I have a right to express my opinion. No forces you to agree or do as I like.
man, you are funny. You say that gay rights discussions are annoying to you and thus you think that they should be banned in Russia and yet still you are here in this topic discussing the matter that annoys you so greatly. As someone has already told you if you don't like listening to such news or discussions then don't, switch the tv program, open another page in the browser, but don't approve of when they shut down liberties in another country. That's dumb.
On August 05 2013 02:11 darkness wrote: Please tell me any rally that happens every year like gay parades and appears on news. The gay right thing is irrelevant, the problem is it's too frequent in media for my taste. With the same reason, I don't wanna hear of Syria that much either. I understand things are real and serious, but repeating them as parrots isn't enough nor pleasure.
I understand some people don't agree, but this is me. No, the world doesn't revolve around me as one of you asked, but I think I have a right to express my opinion. No forces you to agree or do as I like.
Great, then you should understand the gay community at the very least has a right to express their opinion that they should be looked upon as normal human beings and not discriminated against. I can't emphasize enough how easy it is to sit in your chair and denounce gay parades and not have to suffer through intolerance and discrimination as they do. It reeks of ignorance and bias.
If you had rights taken away with the reasoning 'we don't like you,' I'm SURE you'd simply nod and take it lying down.
On August 05 2013 02:11 darkness wrote: Please tell me any rally that happens every year like gay parades and appears on news. The gay right thing is irrelevant, the problem is it's too frequent in media for my taste. With the same reason, I don't wanna hear of Syria that much either. I understand things are real and serious, but repeating them as parrots isn't enough nor pleasure.
I understand some people don't agree, but this is me. No, the world doesn't revolve around me as one of you asked, but I think I have a right to express my opinion. No forces you to agree or do as I like.
Yeah it's not like these people were beaten up and chased around for hundreds of years, how dare they to make funny parades two or three times a year!
I have to admit, it's really hard to live a undisturbed live as a white heterosexual male in the 21st century with all these gays, black guys and women around.
On August 05 2013 02:11 darkness wrote: Please tell me any rally that happens every year like gay parades and appears on news. The gay right thing is irrelevant, the problem is it's too frequent in media for my taste. With the same reason, I don't wanna hear of Syria that much either. I understand things are real and serious, but repeating them as parrots isn't enough nor pleasure.
I understand some people don't agree, but this is me. No, the world doesn't revolve around me as one of you asked, but I think I have a right to express my opinion. No forces you to agree or do as I like.
Tour de France, superbowl and the Rio carnival would come to mind as events happening every year too. A yearly event is hardly often by any meaningful measure. I hate looking at 10 hours of direct coverage on several channels of a largely irrelevant wedding, baptism, burial or coronation in some royal family I cannot relate to. I would just turn off the tv and do something else as these event are rare. It is no harder than that.
To me it seems that you are dishonest about why you hate to hear about it. You keep trying to rationalize feelings, but your rationalisations are very weak arguments. Just admit that your problem is not based on facts and move on.
On August 05 2013 02:11 darkness wrote: Please tell me any rally that happens every year like gay parades and appears on news. The gay right thing is irrelevant, the problem is it's too frequent in media for my taste. With the same reason, I don't wanna hear of Syria that much either. I understand things are real and serious, but repeating them as parrots isn't enough nor pleasure.
I understand some people don't agree, but this is me. No, the world doesn't revolve around me as one of you asked, but I think I have a right to express my opinion. No forces you to agree or do as I like.
Well fuck. Maybe they should get their damn rights already, and then they wouldn't be such a nuisance to you.
Wow. last six comments all replied to the same guy.
Obviously he is just tired of seeing the same news over and over again. No reason to bash the guy for it. Even though his concern for gays rights could use a boost, and he probably shouldn't have voiced his opinion on it here, but rather in a blog.
On August 05 2013 10:12 TheRealArtemis wrote: Wow. last six comments all replied to the same guy.
Obviously he is just tired of seeing the same news over and over again. No reason to bash the guy for it. Even though his concern for gays rights could use a boost, and he probably shouldn't have voiced his opinion on it here, but rather in a blog.
So tired he is of seeing the news he has to outwardly vent his opinion and further entrench himself in the issue. The gay community should just shut up about being discriminated against: That's not a reasonable or defensible position, and suggests incredible bigotry.
I don`t want to talk about boycotting the Olympics, but i can give you an "inside look" about how things are in Russia. First of all, the main problem is that most of the people don`t like gays here. I mean that a lot of people hate gays in Russia. Calling someone gay is usually meant to be insulting. However, the government isn`t trying to teach people tolerance, it is the other way around, they pass laws that are against gay rights. It is politics mostly. Approximately two years ago protests started rising in Russia because of the falsified elections in to the parliament, the government uses different ways to calm people down. One of the ways is to pass these kind of laws, and shout on TV that protesters are against anti-gay laws. Keep in mind that the majority of people hate gays, so it might work. P.S. About the youtube clip in the thread: it`s just a crappy song about "lose weight till summer". It has nothing to do with gays.
so yeah, to point out the hypocrisy. but that's not the issue, the law isn't against "gay propaganda" because it's especially explicit or dirty or whatever, but because it is coming from homosexuals. and, according to the russian government, that will be the downfall of the country if left unchecked.
The reason gay-propaganda will lead to the downfall of Russia is its too damn sexy. Putin et al just cant get enough. Like a fat kid with a cookie jar they're just too greedy. A single gay photo stops Mother Russia dead.
On August 05 2013 02:11 darkness wrote: Please tell me any rally that happens every year like gay parades and appears on news. The gay right thing is irrelevant, the problem is it's too frequent in media for my taste. With the same reason, I don't wanna hear of Syria that much either. I understand things are real and serious, but repeating them as parrots isn't enough nor pleasure.
I understand some people don't agree, but this is me. No, the world doesn't revolve around me as one of you asked, but I think I have a right to express my opinion. No forces you to agree or do as I like.
Really? Here in the US where its much more tolerated to have parades and such and the issue of gay rights is a hot topic, you still are rarely confronted by it unless you look for it.
This "there is too much of it its annoying" is a cop out argument that doesn't have much substance. There is so much media out there now a days and so many things going on that Gay Rights and issues are never that "big" as to be constantly in the media. As for parades....well once or twice a year is too much? Dats some easily annoyed personality you got.
If it's not utter corruption or drug usage it's about human rights, when will sports actualy be just about sports again.
I feel nothing for these rules, we make a big deal about this but in Russia gay's have to live with this every bloody day, let's make a constant comotion about that instead of 1x we as tourists enter the country and cry a river. But as soon as the Olympics are over we all forget about this again and continue in our ignorance.
Personally, i'm against this law, however I do know a couple of people, early 30s, who genuinely want to shield their kids from "gay propaganda", which I assume includes parades and media.
IMO, the best way to deal with the gay issue in Russia would be to thoroughly study the phenomenon and present a scientific conclusion. If it turns out to be genetic, which I assume it is, - it will be the end of it.
As far as boycotting the olympics, i just think it's silly. Far worse issues are and have been going on in host-countries. If one needs a couple of boycott reasons, I would pick poverty, government corruption and militarism.
In the US media there exists 2 types of people, those who hate gays and those who hate those who hate gays. In reality there exists a 3rd category which comprises the vast majority of the population which is those who dont give a goddamn shit.
If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
If you are talking about gay rights such as marriage benefits then you are talking about social engineering which is a separate issue from gay discrimination.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote: In the US media there exists 2 types of people, those who hate gays and those who hate those who hate gays. In reality there exists a 3rd category which comprises the vast majority of the population which is those who dont give a goddamn shit.
If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
If you are talking about gay rights such as marriage benefits then you are talking about social engineering which is a separate issue from gay discrimination.
If you as a minority "stfu" as you put it, no one will ever know about you, wich in turn no one will ever get to understand you or the situation and in turn be able to accept the term of some one being Gay.
This must be one of the most stupid things i have read in a long time.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote: In the US media there exists 2 types of people, those who hate gays and those who hate those who hate gays. In reality there exists a 3rd category which comprises the vast majority of the population which is those who dont give a goddamn shit.
If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
If you are talking about gay rights such as marriage benefits then you are talking about social engineering which is a separate issue from gay discrimination.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Who are these sociologists that say
that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Who are these sociologists that say that "gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so."?
Its a pretty assumed extrapolation (if not explicitly stated extrapolation).
Marriage gains multiple benefits from tax write offs to living expense write offs and reductions to shared benefits. This is an inarguable product of social engineering by the government ie, marrying and starting a family then raising kids jointly is rewarded with multiple benefits.
Gay rights has focused on receiving equal benefits to heterosexual marriage benefits over the last couple decades. This is focused on "marriage" but also branches into other areas. How many articles have you read about some gay partner who is ineligible for their significant other's benefits because they are of the same sex whereas they would be fine if they were of the opposite sex?
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Hes probably wondering who says this is a fact: "..The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer ..."
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Hes probably wondering who says this is a fact: "..The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer ..."
It's kind of strange because surely some people still support gay rights due to wanting a more normal and non-discriminated lifestyle when stuff like this: http://www.khou.com/news/national/218451091.html clearly still happens to people.
There are parts of the country where illegal segregation occurs. You can site all sorts of examples of bigotry towards multiple groups in isolated events but the reality is that gay rights in the main stream is more or less accepted.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Hes probably wondering who says this is a fact: "..The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer ..."
It's kind of strange because surely some people still support gay rights due to wanting a more normal and non-discriminated lifestyle when stuff like this: http://www.khou.com/news/national/218451091.html clearly still happens to people.
There are parts of the country where illegal segregation occurs.
Yes, and the aim is to reduce occurrences of it, mainly involving education of ignorant people
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Hes probably wondering who says this is a fact: "..The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer ..."
It's kind of strange because surely some people still support gay rights due to wanting a more normal and non-discriminated lifestyle when stuff like this: http://www.khou.com/news/national/218451091.html clearly still happens to people.
There are parts of the country where illegal segregation occurs.
Yes, and the aim is to reduce occurrences of it, mainly involving education of ignorant people
Thats nice but it is unrelated to the discussion of social engineering and the demands of the benefits of such by same sex couples.
I'm pretty sure this is off topic, but I swear just tonight I dreamed Vladimir Putin made me Croque-monsieur and some vegetables to go with that. :/
I just can't not share that in this thread. I don't think I'll get into an actual discussion here because of how touchy this discussion is. Also consider that this is Russia we're talking about, most of you don't live in Russia. Are we really allowed to judge another country's stance on things? It's their culture, it's up to them. If they don't want to allow young minds to understand homosexuality it's up to them, however out-lawing something will only really make it more mysterious/interesting so it'll end up backfiring on them probably.
I really think homosexuals should be given the same rights as a straight couple and bam, move on to something else. It's so easy to create drama when there are other things that need to be examined.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Hes probably wondering who says this is a fact: "..The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer ..."
It's kind of strange because surely some people still support gay rights due to wanting a more normal and non-discriminated lifestyle when stuff like this: http://www.khou.com/news/national/218451091.html clearly still happens to people.
There are parts of the country where illegal segregation occurs.
Yes, and the aim is to reduce occurrences of it, mainly involving education of ignorant people
Thats nice but it is unrelated to the discussion of social engineering and the demands of the benefits of such by same sex couples.
What social engineering? They want to access the same benefits that married couples do out of the principle of having genuine equality and not just being paid lip service to that effect. That's not what most people associate with the term.
I think boycotting the Olympics for this won't do any good. But maybe the gay athletes can do a bit of civil disobedience when they are done competing. Would be interesting to see if Russia would actually arrest athletes during the Olympics.
The isue that some people have with gay-pride and such i think is that they are verry vocal, wich some people see as attention seeking. Like the dramatic "coming out of the closet". Manny elements of the gay movement are verry extravert and some are a bit overdramatic. Some people have the feeling that it are gays themselves who make beeing gay a huge isue. I think it is true it can be devided in 3 categorys like another poster on this or previous page said,and that the majority does not realy give a shit. I had a few friends ,guys and girls, coming out and telling they where gay and we just shrugged and said "ok cool" and everyone moved on and was happy. If people keep making an isue about it every day though it will get a bit annoying for some people and i think this is what some people in this thread bothers about the gay movement. They dont see gays as beeing extremely discriminated as they do have the same rights as other people and are threated as equal by a big majority of the population in nearly all western countries. Black people,women and specially muslims are way bigger groups and probably more discriminated against then gays. Am not saying that gays should not make an isue about getting equall rights, they fully deserve to be threated as every other person, but all i am saying is that for some people it sometimes is to much and that they dont want to hear about it annymore. Well, hope i didnt offend annyone with this,am just trying to make both sides understand eachoter a bit better.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote:If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Hes probably wondering who says this is a fact: "..The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer ..."
It's kind of strange because surely some people still support gay rights due to wanting a more normal and non-discriminated lifestyle when stuff like this: http://www.khou.com/news/national/218451091.html clearly still happens to people.
There are parts of the country where illegal segregation occurs.
Yes, and the aim is to reduce occurrences of it, mainly involving education of ignorant people
Thats nice but it is unrelated to the discussion of social engineering and the demands of the benefits of such by same sex couples.
What social engineering? They want to access the same benefits that married couples do out of the principle of having genuine equality and not just being paid lip service to that effect. That's not what most people associate with the term.
Well i agree with most things Mallard86 says (not all though). When he says social engenerring, he probbaly means that most of benefits modern society offers to marriages are rooted in the past. In times when countries strived to have more and more citizens. Mostly in order to fight wars and boost inner consumption. For example in XIX century most european countries were desparate to boost their population growth beacuase they needed more and more people to fight their wars for them. High food production was already in place, so one thing they needed was to boost population growth. In order to achieve this a number of special benefits/ tax excpetion were introduced (less taxes for marriages/more children-less tax, a grants for families with lots of children etc). Social engineering at its finest. Those practices countinuued well into XX century, and are still used today. Though few people realize their roots. And their purpose.
PS. From that point of view granting same tax exception to homosexual couples as to stright ones is wrong (because it doesnt achieve the goal those exepction were introduced in the first place). We should devise another kind of incentives specialy for homosexuals (in order to boost their contribution to society). Though i dont think its possible to have different bonuses for hetero and homosexuals, not in courrent state of things. Some would thought of this as discrimiantion.
PS2. I am against tax exceptions for stright marriages anyway, because modern societies dont need to boost population growth. Hell we should lower it (in entire world).
PS3. A lot of modern social policies/engineering or however You want to call it, are done without clear goal in mind. They are often wrongly applied, missplaced, or serve more temporary popularity of politician rather than long term benfit of society as a whole.
On August 06 2013 14:44 notwelldone wrote: [quote] Yeah, and what about them black guys generating disproportionate backlash by trying to have the same rights as us white folk. They just need to shut up and everything will be ok.
The whole Zimmerman trial crying by minority groups has generated far more backlash than good because there is so much unfounded crying.
Social engineering? Marriage historically is a human construct, period. Gargh.
Marriage in the US is a social engineering practice period. It is a ploy to construct man/woman families with their offspring raised by their biological parents. The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer but to tap into these social engineering benefits which have been put together by the government over the last century or so.
Id just as soon see all marriage and family benefits abolished regardless of the family structure.
According to whom is that a fact?
Most sociologists? Marriage between a man and woman has numerous tax benefits along with other benefits in insurance etc.
There is a marked difference between western gay rights demands and other gay rights demands. In the west, the demand is that gays be eligible for marriage and other benefits. In other cultures there is the demand that gays not be beaten and executed or otherwise completely and utterly ostracized from the community. While both are different levels of discrimination, there is assuredly a difference between the two. At the very least, both come from traditional standards of social values. In the west, it is almost solely an argument over who should and should not receive financial and social benefits.
Hes probably wondering who says this is a fact: "..The fact is that gay "rights" of the last couple decades has nothing to do with allowing gays to live a lifestyle they prefer ..."
It's kind of strange because surely some people still support gay rights due to wanting a more normal and non-discriminated lifestyle when stuff like this: http://www.khou.com/news/national/218451091.html clearly still happens to people.
There are parts of the country where illegal segregation occurs.
Yes, and the aim is to reduce occurrences of it, mainly involving education of ignorant people
Thats nice but it is unrelated to the discussion of social engineering and the demands of the benefits of such by same sex couples.
What social engineering? They want to access the same benefits that married couples do out of the principle of having genuine equality and not just being paid lip service to that effect. That's not what most people associate with the term.
Well i agree with most things Mallard86 says (not all though). When he says social engenerring, he probbaly means that most of benefits modern society offers to marriages are rooted in the past. In times when countries strived to have more and more citizens. Mostly in order to fight wars and boost inner consumption. For example in XIX century most european countries were desparate to boost their population growth beacuase they needed more and more people to fight their wars for them. High food production was already in place, so one thing they needed was to boost population growth. In order to achieve this a number of special benefits/ tax excpetion were introduced (less taxes for marriages/more children-less tax, a grants for families with lots of children etc). Social engineering at its finest. Those practices countinuued well into XX century, and are still used today. Though few people realize their roots. And their purpose.
PS. From that point of view granting same tax exception to homosexual couples as to stright ones is wrong (because it doesnt achieve the goal those exepction were introduced in the first place). We should devise another kind of incentives specialy for homosexuals (in order to boost their contribution to society). Though i dont think its possible to have different bonuses for hetero and homosexuals, not in courrent state of things. Some would thought of this as discrimiantion.
PS2. I am against tax exceptions for stright marriages anyway, because modern societies dont need to boost population growth. Hell we should lower it (in entire world).
PS3. A lot of modern social policies/engineering or however You want to call it, are done without clear goal in mind. They are often wrongly applied, missplaced, or serve more temporary popularity of politician rather than long term benfit of society as a whole.
Social engineering is kind of a weak construct to argue from since you can apply the name to every law ever made. If we are talking UK porn-filter and russian and gay-propaganda they are clearly targeted at moderating peoples behaviour and they are true social engineering constructs used to preserve something, a true conservative nanny state. When it comes to marriage it is far more vague.
Marriage as such seems like a construct to protect monogamic relations, which is completely independent of sexuality of those getting married. There is an argument of the church, but as such it is irrelevant to the civil construct around marriage.
In terms of the birth-incentivising construct: That may have been the original goal of the benefits, but it is no longer as crucial a concept since the times have changed and if you fear demographic problems, immigration is a solution but also artificial incemination and adoption are there as complementary tools and to some degree those types of population increases are independent of sexuality. While I can see the reason for scrapping all the benefits from marriage, the question is if their protection of monogamy makes it worthy on its own as a construct to keep? I would say that some of them may be.
Remember this topic is about Russia. As i pointed before their rapidly shrinking population is one of the reasons behind those anti-homosexual policies. They prefere homosexuals to stay in the closet and create families (but with children).
Also immigration isnt really the same thing as population growth, it obviously depends on the outlook shared by countries elite. In Russia immigration isnt really viewed as something good. Its a threat. They want to combat it not encurage it. Remmber that these measures have suport of the vast majority of population.
Russia is master of his own country, so their policy. If they don't want to do "gay propaganda", it's their own choice. Russia just don't want to give to the gay lobby an official tribune to spread a propaganda. Don't forget that the gay marriage is forbidden in Russia and in a lots of stats in America so clean up your own back yard
This attack against Russia is approximately the same than the femen activist group. Who the hell you think finance the femen, these ex prositutes? give them headquarter in the Paris city,Kiev... and 1000 dollars/month. Some riches peaple who have some interest to put down Russia, fight for gay marriage and against religions (christian and Islam only, think about that).
Russia did some thing good lately, they banned the adoption of foreign gay couples.
Ps: all what i said against femen is proven. Inna Shevchenko,Eloise Bouton.. former prostitutes. And the finance are from Helmut Geier, Beat Schoben, Jed Sundenet, George Soros ...
On August 06 2013 22:38 misspoo wrote: Russia is master of his own country, so their policy. If they don't want to do "gay propaganda", it's their own choice. Russia just don't want to give to the gay lobby an official tribune to spread a propaganda. Don't forget that the gay marriage is forbidden in Russia and in a lots of stats in America so clean up your own back yard
This attack against Russia is approximately the same than the femen activist group. Who the hell you think finance the femen, these ex prositutes? give them headquarter in the Paris city,Kiev... and 1000 dollars/month. Some riches peaple who have some interest to put down Russia, fight for gay marriage and against religions (christian and Islam only, think about that).
Ps: all what i said against femen is proven. Inna Shevchenko,Eloise Bouton.. former prostitutes. And the finance are from Helmut Geier, Beat Schober et Jed Sundenet.
On August 06 2013 14:27 Mallard86 wrote: In the US media there exists 2 types of people, those who hate gays and those who hate those who hate gays. In reality there exists a 3rd category which comprises the vast majority of the population which is those who dont give a goddamn shit.
If the gays would stfu then nobody would care one way or another but they have to force their lifestyle on popular culture which generates a disproportionate backlash.
If you are talking about gay rights such as marriage benefits then you are talking about social engineering which is a separate issue from gay discrimination.
Uhh... their "lifestyle"? What lifestyle? If they want to get married, then wouldn't that be the "married lifestyle"?
You don't just get to call something a "lifestyle" and then pretend that you're not being bigoted. What, are you going to talk about the Jewish lifestyle and black lifestyle? (Ahem, I meant the "Hollywood lifestyle" and "urban lifestyle.")
Marriage is a government contract. A lot of the rights have to do with your specific relationship to the government, so it's not like it could be a private contract (like legal rights). So discriminating against gays for this contract is just open discrimination.
And actually gays did stfu for quite a long time and they were subjected to maiming, rape, and murder. I'm not exactly sure why you think saying nothing is a good idea for them.
On August 06 2013 21:32 woreyour wrote: Russia is too manly for gays.
Since when are gays unmanly? I swear this is the strangest stereotype of all.
On August 06 2013 22:38 misspoo wrote: Russia is master of his own country, so their policy. If they don't want to do "gay propaganda", it's their own choice. Russia just don't want to give to the gay lobby an official tribune to spread a propaganda. Don't forget that the gay marriage is forbidden in Russia and in a lots of stats in America so clean up your own back yard
This attack against Russia is approximately the same than the femen activist group. Who the hell you think finance the femen, these ex prositutes? give them headquarter in the Paris city,Kiev... and 1000 dollars/month. Some riches peaple who have some interest to put down Russia, fight for gay marriage and against religions (christian and Islam only, think about that).
Russia did some thing good lately, they banned the adoption of foreign gay couples.
Ps: all what i said against femen is proven. Inna Shevchenko,Eloise Bouton.. former prostitutes. And the finance are from Helmut Geier, Beat Schoben, Jed Sundenet, George Soros ...
I'll never understand what goes on in the head of people that think everything is a conspiracy.
Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
The biggest problem is the discretion given to the police since the law is very flexible. When that is said, brain drain doesn't seem impossible, depending again on how police will interpret the law. On the other hand, gays with lesser resources (both economic and knowledge/education) would be screwed even harder.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
Why put gay people in camps when you can just call the local police and say "rustle up some of the skinhead gangs to go beat up the gays when they march on Friday" as has happened in Russia several times at least.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
Why put gay people in camps when you can just rustle up skinhead gangs to beat up gays in public?
But can't you read Deb, only 3 year olds care about what Russians do in Russia.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
Yeah you're right the holocaust was well worth it because the US got to claim Einstein as their own, good job we didn't do anything about Hitler before those 60 million people died, or something really bad might have happened. WW2 what a boon for humanity.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
Why put gay people in camps when you can just rustle up skinhead gangs to beat up gays in public?
True. It certainly is more cost effective and less politically damning since the government is actually "doing" anything.
I find it unfortunate how gays are treated in Russia. But, similarly I find it unfortunate how they're pandered to in the West. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
Yeah you're right the holocaust was well worth it because the US got to claim Einstein as their own, good job we didn't do anything about Hitler before those 60 million people died, or something really bad might have happened. WW2 what a boon for humanity.
Remember this topic is about Russia. As i pointed before their rapidly shrinking population is one of the reasons behind those anti-homosexual policies. They prefere homosexuals to stay in the closet and create families (but with children).
Also immigration isnt really the same thing as population growth, it obviously depends on the outlook shared by countries elite. In Russia immigration isnt really viewed as something good. Its a threat. They want to combat it not encurage it. Remmber that these measures have suport of the vast majority of population.
I think it is the general sentiment in most countries in the world that you don't want to deal with too much diversity, since it will result in loosing some of the national identity. That is the reason for the rise in nationalist parties across europe and Denmark pretty much goes further in that direction than any other country in europe, maybe even the world.
I am not sure how many closeted gays actually breed children. I suspect that many of them will end up far less desirable for society, living alone and draining public programs in their misery...
On August 07 2013 02:58 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
Yeah you're right the holocaust was well worth it because the US got to claim Einstein as their own, good job we didn't do anything about Hitler before those 60 million people died, or something really bad might have happened. WW2 what a boon for humanity.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
Everyone seems to keep forgetting that propaganda includes holding hands with the person you love
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
On August 07 2013 02:58 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: Let 'em. If the world wants to act like a bunch of 3 year old's and bitch and moan about what Russians do in Russia, that's the world's problem. It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
Personally, as a non-Russian, why not look at this as a boon? If the laws are truly that Draconian, I'm sure there are some brilliant homosexual Russian's the rest of the world could steal and put to good use. Brain drain National Socialist Germany style. They run them out, we catch the brains.
Yeah you're right the holocaust was well worth it because the US got to claim Einstein as their own, good job we didn't do anything about Hitler before those 60 million people died, or something really bad might have happened. WW2 what a boon for humanity.
Your words ------> My mouth
Good job.
Edit: Oops, double post. Mah bad.
Godwin's law at it's finest.
Wat. Chill out.
Fine, lemme refine that. I never said the holocaust was "worth it". That's ludicrous and I'm not sure what would cause you to jump to that conclusion based on what I wrote. I'm simply saying, why not take advantage of potential opportunities here? The flight of German scientists, academics and geniuses was irrefutably a boon for the United States, are you trying to rebut that?
If you don't like the German analogy, how about the Byzantine Refugees to Italian city-states following the fall of Constantinople in 1453? Sorry for picking the most culturally and temporally relevant analogy.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
This reminded me of certain Americans feeling threatened after Russia drove tanks into Georgia. Sorry for the off-topic.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
because of a winter sports event in an otherwise very hot city of Sochi, awesome metamorphosis. Where they will set a borderline what's banned and what's acceptable? Somewhere between this: + Show Spoiler +
? If those executives just kept their mouths shut, the whole issue might never surface during the Olympiad, but now it will obviously spark tons of controversy. Good move, Russia.
BTW, "non-traditional sexual orientation" lol. The tradition goes as deep (cough cough pun) as to ancient Greece.
On August 02 2013 08:09 LaZeRKiD45 wrote: lol wow i keep reading these articles on how anti-gay Russia is........ if its not hurting or affecting you negativity, whats the big issue?
if this isnt a troll you might be the dumbest person Ive ever met. its prejudice and needs to be highlighted and protested in all its forms, if you dont get that go read a book orsomething.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
we can only observe, lets be optimistic. i wonder what more liberal-progressive-thinking nations were thinking when minorities were hanging on trees in united states, if there was social media, i'd imagine something similar to what many is saying about russia here. change did happen and i think it can happen to russia too, more likely than some other parts of the world. its a futile situation but if history indeed repeats itself, i think russia can overcome just as usa have in the general main stream sense....but it'll still take generations depending on who steps in power.
Discrimination is culture and needs to be defended! Who are we to tell the Russians they're wrong?!?
As if Russia collectively decided they wanted to be homophobic (nevermind Russian homosexuals...) In real politics laws do not always represent the will of an "overwhelming majority." People arguing there's no place to question Russian law, because it's Russia, and that's their culture... do you really expect to be taken seriously? I mean you could use the same logic for every awful instance of genocide/mass murder in history.
I can say if I was a gay athlete, I would have a bit of apprehension in traveling to a place where gay "propaganda" can land you in prison--it sounds like something drafted by Hitler. If the Olympic host has laws that create fear/apprehension or prevent athletes from attending, it's not worth at least questioning? Like people bitch about far less impactful things in sports, being genuinely afraid for the well-being of an athlete is at least worth discussing.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
we can only observe, lets be optimistic. i wonder what more liberal-progressive-thinking nations were thinking when minorities were hanging on trees in united states, if there was social media, i'd imagine something similar to what many is saying about russia here. change did happen and i think it can happen to russia too, more likely than some other parts of the world. its a futile situation but if history indeed repeats itself, i think russia can overcome just as usa have in the general main stream sense....but it'll still take generations depending on who steps in power.
i dont think pointing fingers at russians help :/
why would pointing out something wrong not help? how were those hypothetical social media people of the past wrong for condemning racism? dont advocate stepping back instead of expressing your opinion when you see injustice.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
we can only observe, lets be optimistic. i wonder what more liberal-progressive-thinking nations were thinking when minorities were hanging on trees in united states, if there was social media, i'd imagine something similar to what many is saying about russia here. change did happen and i think it can happen to russia too, more likely than some other parts of the world. its a futile situation but if history indeed repeats itself, i think russia can overcome just as usa have in the general main stream sense....but it'll still take generations depending on who steps in power.
i dont think pointing fingers at russians help :/
why would pointing out something wrong not help? how were those hypothetical social media people of the past wrong for condemning racism? dont advocate stepping back instead of expressing your opinion when you see injustice.
I almost wonder if Russia is attempting to avoid riots or other issues along those lines with their own people, rather than the athletes attending. There is part of me that is super upset about this, and there is part of me that makes knows it won't matter. The Olympics are beyond Russia to control once they start and if an athlete wears a rainbow arm band or says something, there is nothing Russia can do. What are they going to do, arrest the comparators and earn the wrath of every nation attending.
As I said before, good luck with that Russia. Once you light that torch, you are not stopping people from talking on camera.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
we can only observe, lets be optimistic. i wonder what more liberal-progressive-thinking nations were thinking when minorities were hanging on trees in united states, if there was social media, i'd imagine something similar to what many is saying about russia here. change did happen and i think it can happen to russia too, more likely than some other parts of the world. its a futile situation but if history indeed repeats itself, i think russia can overcome just as usa have in the general main stream sense....but it'll still take generations depending on who steps in power.
i dont think pointing fingers at russians help :/
why would pointing out something wrong not help? how were those hypothetical social media people of the past wrong for condemning racism? dont advocate stepping back instead of expressing your opinion when you see injustice.
I almost wonder if Russia is attempting to avoid riots or other issues along those lines with their own people, rather than the athletes attending. There is part of me that is super upset about this, and there is part of me that makes knows it won't matter. The Olympics are beyond Russia to control once they start and if an athlete wears a rainbow arm band or says something, there is nothing Russia can do. What are they going to do, arrest the comparators and earn the wrath of every nation attending.
As I said before, good luck with that Russia. Once you light that torch, you are not stopping people from talking on camera.
thats actually a good idea, i think athletes should where some subtle symbol to test russia. then again it could back fire. from what i hear this isnt just the government pushing this rule, the general public agrees with the government and those people might get upset seeing these athletes using this event to push the message they dont want to hear.
as for post before, i dont mind speaking opinion on how this is oppressive, but i was just pointing out that cussing out the russian people dont help, as some people like to do here. as in, its not like they had a choice in hating homosexuals, they're merely acting the way they're "suppose" to behave. and to them homosexuality is negative regardless how irrational or illogical that view may be, it goes against what they believe and the act of protecting what they believe to them is logical and rational. only my assumption though.
just saying, if people were able to automatically look past prejudice, looked everything neutral, be able to think in other people's shoes, the world wouldnt be the way it is (i think its improving but that just might be my naivety). since that isnt the case, we should treat it as such and look for solution per se within the confinements/conditions already set.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
"Russia leader do bad shit because power, so no point complaining about it because power. Instead imagine all the good that could come of it: for example if brainy gays emigrate, we can use their skills here."
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
no, its actually pretty easy to understand. Its just such a bullshit attitude. "nothing can be changed, lets abuse it." Criticizing other governments is a totally legit and fine way to create pressure. And while Putin probably wont be affected to much by it, russais society might be. Also, its for sure better than doing nothing.
Oh, and please dont put a Oswald Spengler quote in your post. Not only can I read that one in your signature, but its also a Oswald Spengler quote.
Such grants aren't really meant to incentivise birth, as far as I see it, more to help the family/child when it arrives and help the kids that have arrived be more productive both economically and otherwise in later life.
The cost of raising a child both in terms of care and attention and financial outlay dwarfs these incentives.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
"Russia leader do bad shit because power, so no point complaining about it because power. Instead imagine all the good that could come of it: for example if brainy gays emigrate, we can use their skills here."
Compelling argument for sure
What would you suggest? Because quite frankly all I'm hearing as an alternative is, "Let's whine louder and maybe the bad man will stop." That always works after all.
Nothing? Because that would be a wasted opportunity.
I suppose if a Russian were to make a case, that would be quite different, however to my knowledge you are not Russian and thus have no say over what occurs in Russia. At least until you are willing to invade over this, which I doubt. I suppose we could all pick up our proverbial "balls" and go home (boycott the Olympics) but what real good does that do?
I'm not really making an argument. I'm saying, there's a silver lining to every cloud and we can't actually DO anything about it, so let's look at some positives. Which apparently warrants condescending attacks and rebuttals.
This policy will likely not be going anywhere anytime soon, maybe it will force some homosexual Russians to move. If that's the case, why not be on the lookout for gay Russians with useful skills?
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
no, its actually pretty easy to understand. Its just such a bullshit attitude. "nothing can be changed, lets abuse it." Criticizing other governments is a totally legit and fine way to create pressure. And while Putin probably wont be affected to much by it, russais society might be. Also, its for sure better than doing nothing.
Oh, and please dont but a Oswald Spengler quote in your post. Not only can I read that one in your signature, but its also a Oswald Spengler quote.
Okay. It's a bullshit attitude. How?
We're not going to economically sanction Russia (they're too important), it's not even a small ruling elite as was the case in S. Africa (it's the whole society), and no one's going to go to war over it. So where are you? Flailing your arms and pretending that getting upset and telling people your upset is going to do something? Really?
Do you give a shit when Americans get flabbergasted at your lack of personal firearms? No. You defend (haha! get the joke? You can't because you don't have firearms!) your way of life because it works for you.
Do Americans care when European nations can demonstrate higher standards of living and superior public health with state run medicine? No, because our principles are different and, "lalalalala, my way of life!"
Sitting on your computer criticizing Russia DOES jack. Not that I don't condone it (the criticism), but actually thinking it does something is delusional unless you're Russian.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
"Russia leader do bad shit because power, so no point complaining about it because power. Instead imagine all the good that could come of it: for example if brainy gays emigrate, we can use their skills here."
Compelling argument for sure
What would you suggest? Because quite frankly all I'm hearing as an alternative is, "Let's whine louder and maybe the bad man will stop." That always works after all.
Nothing? Because that would be a wasted opportunity.
I suppose if a Russian were to make a case, that would be quite different, however to my knowledge you are not Russian and thus have no say over what occurs in Russia. At least until you are willing to invade over this, which I doubt. I suppose we could all pick up our proverbial "balls" and go home (boycott the Olympics) but what real good does that do?
I'm not really making an argument. I'm saying, there's a silver lining to every cloud and we can't actually DO anything about it, so let's look at some positives. Which apparently warrants condescending attacks and rebuttals.
This policy will likely not be going anywhere anytime soon, maybe it will force some homosexual Russians to move. If that's the case, why not be on the lookout for gay Russians with useful skills?
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
no, its actually pretty easy to understand. Its just such a bullshit attitude. "nothing can be changed, lets abuse it." Criticizing other governments is a totally legit and fine way to create pressure. And while Putin probably wont be affected to much by it, russais society might be. Also, its for sure better than doing nothing.
Oh, and please dont but a Oswald Spengler quote in your post. Not only can I read that one in your signature, but its also a Oswald Spengler quote.
Okay. It's a bullshit attitude. How?
We're not going to economically sanction Russia (they're too important), it's not even a small ruling elite as was the case in S. Africa (it's the whole society), and no one's going to go to war over it. So where are you? Flailing your arms and pretending that getting upset and telling people your upset is going to do something? Really?
Do you give a shit when Americans get flabbergasted at your lack of personal firearms? No. You defend (haha! get the joke? You can't because you don't have firearms!) your way of life because it works for you.
Do Americans care when European nations can demonstrate higher standards of living and superior public health with state run medicine? No, because our principles are different and, "lalalalala, my way of life!"
Sitting on your computer criticizing Russia DOES jack. Not that I don't condone it (the criticism), but actually thinking it does something is delusional unless you're Russian.
That's all I'm saying. So how is that bullshit?
So you are saying we shouldn't be upset or angry because it doesn't accomplish anything? Does your arguing with us on the subject make us less likely to argue? No, it does not. It does not make us less likely to discuss the matter. However, it does derail the discussion.
At the end of the day, Russia can puff it's chest about its anti gay laws, but they will won't do much once the games start. If the every US team walks out rainbows on their arms and gay pride pins, Russia isn't going to do shit about it. Because at the end of the day, they are as powerless to stop our athletes from protesting and we are to stop them from passing stupid laws.
arent there some kind of anti-politics law? korea does that "dokdo is ours" thing, we saw it in sc2 and we see it frequently in soccer and other sports. i think athletes get fined depending on the organization, like fifa or something.
i wonder what more liberal-progressive-thinking nations were thinking when minorities were hanging on trees in united states,
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
That's not true at all though is it?
Britain hasn't done anything of the sort for centuries (not on our own soil anyway), Weimar Germany and even Bolshevik Russia were a hell of a lot less racist than the segregated south too.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
"Russia leader do bad shit because power, so no point complaining about it because power. Instead imagine all the good that could come of it: for example if brainy gays emigrate, we can use their skills here."
Compelling argument for sure
What would you suggest? Because quite frankly all I'm hearing as an alternative is, "Let's whine louder and maybe the bad man will stop." That always works after all.
Nothing? Because that would be a wasted opportunity.
I suppose if a Russian were to make a case, that would be quite different, however to my knowledge you are not Russian and thus have no say over what occurs in Russia. At least until you are willing to invade over this, which I doubt. I suppose we could all pick up our proverbial "balls" and go home (boycott the Olympics) but what real good does that do?
I'm not really making an argument. I'm saying, there's a silver lining to every cloud and we can't actually DO anything about it, so let's look at some positives. Which apparently warrants condescending attacks and rebuttals.
This policy will likely not be going anywhere anytime soon, maybe it will force some homosexual Russians to move. If that's the case, why not be on the lookout for gay Russians with useful skills?
On August 07 2013 06:14 Paljas wrote:
On August 07 2013 05:45 Kimaker wrote:
On August 07 2013 03:39 Paljas wrote:
On August 07 2013 03:20 Kimaker wrote:
On August 07 2013 03:08 qotsager wrote:
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
no, its actually pretty easy to understand. Its just such a bullshit attitude. "nothing can be changed, lets abuse it." Criticizing other governments is a totally legit and fine way to create pressure. And while Putin probably wont be affected to much by it, russais society might be. Also, its for sure better than doing nothing.
Oh, and please dont but a Oswald Spengler quote in your post. Not only can I read that one in your signature, but its also a Oswald Spengler quote.
Okay. It's a bullshit attitude. How?
We're not going to economically sanction Russia (they're too important), it's not even a small ruling elite as was the case in S. Africa (it's the whole society), and no one's going to go to war over it. So where are you? Flailing your arms and pretending that getting upset and telling people your upset is going to do something? Really?
Do you give a shit when Americans get flabbergasted at your lack of personal firearms? No. You defend (haha! get the joke? You can't because you don't have firearms!) your way of life because it works for you.
Do Americans care when European nations can demonstrate higher standards of living and superior public health with state run medicine? No, because our principles are different and, "lalalalala, my way of life!"
Sitting on your computer criticizing Russia DOES jack. Not that I don't condone it (the criticism), but actually thinking it does something is delusional unless you're Russian.
That's all I'm saying. So how is that bullshit?
So you are saying we shouldn't be upset or angry because it doesn't accomplish anything? Does your arguing with us on the subject make us less likely to argue? No, it does not. It does not make us less likely to discuss the matter. However, it does derail the discussion.
At the end of the day, Russia can puff it's chest about its anti gay laws, but they will won't do much once the games start. If the every US team walks out rainbows on their arms and gay pride pins, Russia isn't going to do shit about it. Because at the end of the day, they are as powerless to stop our athletes from protesting and we are to stop them from passing stupid laws.
Fuggit. Let's recap then I'm peacing out:
1. I said, "Well, whining is not ACTUALLY going to do anything. Since that's the case, here's an interesting way it could effect the gay population in Russia and what other nations could do to take advantage of the demographic shift this policy may cause. After all, policies which target small segments of the population have been shown to cause such situations before as in the case of Nazi Germany and the Jews."
2. People twisted my words to claim that I said the holocaust was somehow "Good". WTF.
3. People start projecting my analysis of the situation as, "Can't effect any change currently, so make the best of it." into, "I GIVE UP. WE SHOULD ALL GIVE UP. CRITICISM IS DUMB. DEFEATISM HURR DURR."
4. Explain in greater detail why sitting here criticizing isn't really causing any sort of change (without ruling out criticism altogether as it is certainly a useful endeavor. Particularly posts by LaContra, feathertheguru and...someone earlier who pointed out how it can be interpreted as being another way to deal with the Russian demographic collapse. These all shed light on the situation in a critical way.)
On August 07 2013 06:49 jinorazi wrote: arent there some kind of anti-politics law? korea does that "dokdo is ours" thing, we saw it in sc2 and we see it frequently in soccer and other sports. i think athletes get fined depending on the organization, like fifa or something.
There's obviously a line you can cross with this.
eg. North Korea should not be allowed to host the Olympics.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
no, its actually pretty easy to understand. Its just such a bullshit attitude. "nothing can be changed, lets abuse it." Criticizing other governments is a totally legit and fine way to create pressure. And while Putin probably wont be affected to much by it, russais society might be. Also, its for sure better than doing nothing.
Oh, and please dont but a Oswald Spengler quote in your post. Not only can I read that one in your signature, but its also a Oswald Spengler quote.
Okay. It's a bullshit attitude. How?
We're not going to economically sanction Russia (they're too important), it's not even a small ruling elite as was the case in S. Africa (it's the whole society), and no one's going to go to war over it. So where are you? Flailing your arms and pretending that getting upset and telling people your upset is going to do something? Really?
Do you give a shit when Americans get flabbergasted at your lack of personal firearms? No. You defend (haha! get the joke? You can't because you don't have firearms!) your way of life because it works for you.
Do Americans care when European nations can demonstrate higher standards of living and superior public health with state run medicine? No, because our principles are different and, "lalalalala, my way of life!"
Sitting on your computer criticizing Russia DOES jack. Not that I don't condone it (the criticism), but actually thinking it does something is delusional unless you're Russian.
That's all I'm saying. So how is that bullshit?
your comparisons are really off. yes, me criticizing russia doesnt do anything. the usa, or the eu criticizing might (probably wont tho). however, the ignorance of the western world against violation of human rights is just disgusting. (prime example would be china. well, actually the prime example would be the western world itself, becasue most countrys refuse to fix their on problems with human rights and nobody cares about that.) yes, it is a fight between davind and a goliath.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
"Optimism is cowardice."-Oswald Spengler
You can know what's "right" or "decent" all you want. At the end of the day Putin doesn't really give a shit and he has power and you don't. I'm sick of having my words twisted into, "X is good because it can be taken advantage of by Y group."
That's not what I'm saying and I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm making an observation of what would be politically expedient for a given group. It wasn't what I said the first time, and it's not what I'm saying now. I'm being realistic. There's nothing can be done at the current juncture, at least there may come some benefit from it if the politics are played correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
no, its actually pretty easy to understand. Its just such a bullshit attitude. "nothing can be changed, lets abuse it." Criticizing other governments is a totally legit and fine way to create pressure. And while Putin probably wont be affected to much by it, russais society might be. Also, its for sure better than doing nothing.
Oh, and please dont but a Oswald Spengler quote in your post. Not only can I read that one in your signature, but its also a Oswald Spengler quote.
Okay. It's a bullshit attitude. How?
We're not going to economically sanction Russia (they're too important), it's not even a small ruling elite as was the case in S. Africa (it's the whole society), and no one's going to go to war over it. So where are you? Flailing your arms and pretending that getting upset and telling people your upset is going to do something? Really?
Do you give a shit when Americans get flabbergasted at your lack of personal firearms? No. You defend (haha! get the joke? You can't because you don't have firearms!) your way of life because it works for you.
Do Americans care when European nations can demonstrate higher standards of living and superior public health with state run medicine? No, because our principles are different and, "lalalalala, my way of life!"
Sitting on your computer criticizing Russia DOES jack. Not that I don't condone it (the criticism), but actually thinking it does something is delusional unless you're Russian.
That's all I'm saying. So how is that bullshit?
your comparisons are really off. yes, me criticizing russia doesnt do anything. the usa, or the eu criticizing might (probably wont tho). however, the ignorance of the western world against violation of human rights is just disgusting. (prime example would be china. well, actually the prime example would be the western world itself, becasue most countrys refuse to fix their on problems with human rights and nobody cares about that.) yes, it is a fight between davind and a goliath.
Ignorance in what sense? because believe me, the vast majority of Chinese citizens approves of their own government a lot more than you do. What would be your ideal scenario, if the West overthrows the Chinese government, ruins their rapidly developing economy, reverses their rising standard of living to you can impose your human rights? Need I even bother to mention Western industrialization was also built on the backs of exploited workers? quite possibly significantly worse than the conditions in China today. Why did the West not care about the violation of human rights in China before the 90s? because China wasn't a threat back then, and now it is. Why are there so many urgent human rights issues in the middle east (Syria) but there's no urgency to improve even worse problems in Africa (Somalia, Sudan)? Even you can figure this out
The ignorance of how the world works is the only thing disgusting here.
On August 07 2013 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: Show nested quote +
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
That's not true at all though is it?
Britain hasn't done anything of the sort for centuries (not on our own soil anyway), Weimar Germany and even Bolshevik Russia were a hell of a lot less racist than the segregated south too.
No Bolshevik Russia wasn't it was intensely racist against non-Russians Ukrainians were kind of okay Byelorussians were okay Georgians were okay while Stalin was alive other than that you were a prime candidate for enemy of the state and relocation past Kuibyshev somewhere. They used to appoint Russians to high posts in non-Russian areas of the USSR as a deliberate insult to the people there and because they didn't trust them because they weren't Russian. They starved millions of Ukrainians to death to keep Russians in Moscow and St. Petersburg fed because who cares about Ukrainians.
Weimar Germany was very racist but not as openly racist as the South that didn't take long to change
Of course it's true Europe wasn't always more progressive than America man that's a post-war (WW2) development
On August 07 2013 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: Show nested quote +
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
I honestly can't think of many more posters that post nonsense the rate that you have over the past year.
On August 07 2013 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: Show nested quote +
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
That's not true at all though is it?
Britain hasn't done anything of the sort for centuries (not on our own soil anyway), Weimar Germany and even Bolshevik Russia were a hell of a lot less racist than the segregated south too.
No Bolshevik Russia wasn't it was intensely racist against non-Russians Ukrainians were kind of okay Byelorussians were okay Georgians were okay while Stalin was alive other than that you were a prime candidate for enemy of the state and relocation past Kuibyshev somewhere. They used to appoint Russians to high posts in non-Russian areas of the USSR as a deliberate insult to the people there and because they didn't trust them because they weren't Russian. They starved millions of Ukrainians to death to keep Russians in Moscow and St. Petersburg fed because who cares about Ukrainians.
Weimar Germany was very racist but not as openly racist as the South that didn't take long to change
Of course it's true Europe wasn't always more progressive than America man that's a post-war (WW2) development
On August 07 2013 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: Show nested quote +
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
I honestly can't think of many more posters that post nonsense the rate that you have over the past year.
I honestly can't think of how I could care more.
The Holodomor didn't have racial motives it was about forced industrialisation, and there were loads of Jews (Kaganovic, Trotsky), Georgians (Beria/Stalin), Armenians (Mikoyan) and Ukranians (Mayakovsky) at the highest echelons of the Bolshevik Party. Stalin attacked the Jews post WW2 but at the same time kept Kaganovic and many others around.
The Bolsheviks were overall obviously really bad but they were considerably less discriminating over race than the USA was at the time.
Europe abolished slavery decades before America did too. Hell even Tsarist Russia abolished slavery before you guys and when you're less progressive than Tsarist Russia you know you're the lowest of the low.
On August 07 2013 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: Show nested quote +
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
That's not true at all though is it?
Britain hasn't done anything of the sort for centuries (not on our own soil anyway), Weimar Germany and even Bolshevik Russia were a hell of a lot less racist than the segregated south too.
No Bolshevik Russia wasn't it was intensely racist against non-Russians Ukrainians were kind of okay Byelorussians were okay Georgians were okay while Stalin was alive other than that you were a prime candidate for enemy of the state and relocation past Kuibyshev somewhere. They used to appoint Russians to high posts in non-Russian areas of the USSR as a deliberate insult to the people there and because they didn't trust them because they weren't Russian. They starved millions of Ukrainians to death to keep Russians in Moscow and St. Petersburg fed because who cares about Ukrainians.
Weimar Germany was very racist but not as openly racist as the South that didn't take long to change
Of course it's true Europe wasn't always more progressive than America man that's a post-war (WW2) development
On August 07 2013 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: Show nested quote +
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
I honestly can't think of many more posters that post nonsense the rate that you have over the past year.
I honestly can't think of how I could care more.
The Holodomor didn't have racial motives it was about forced industrialisation, and there were loads of Jews (Kaganovic, Trotsky), Georgians (Beria/Stalin), Armenians (Mikoyan) and Ukranians (Mayakovsky) at the highest echelons of the Bolshevik Party. Stalin attacked the Jews post WW2 but at the same time kept Kaganovic and many others around.
The Bolsheviks were overall obviously really bad but they were considerably less discriminating over race than the USA was at the time.
Europe abolished slavery decades before America did too. Hell even Tsarist Russia abolished slavery before you guys and when you're less progressive than Tsarist Russia you know you're the lowest of the low.
Yes, because Stalin ordering to eradicate certain ethnic groups is less racist than American apartheid... Your explanation makes as much sense as saying that the bolshevik revolution was not aimed at fighting the wealthy people just because it happened to be financed by some of the wealthiest people in the world.
And Holodomor was used to subjugate Ukrainians, it was no accident.
On August 02 2013 07:00 Djzapz wrote: Just read a thing about Canada's minister of foreign affairs saying that the Olympics are irrelevant because this heinous law affects the Russians 365 days every year.
Apparently, the US, UK and Canada will try to convince Russia to change the law before the Olympics though. But I don't know what we should expect.
O gee, the same countries that still have and/or had the same laws on the books just few years ago. That is like a rapist trying to convince another rapist not to rape.
As long as people believe the government can do whatever they want and have no limits, then government will do whatever they want and most often everything the people don't want.
Russia is a corrupt hell hole because of big government and people having the notion that government is god and can do whatever they want.
How about we all agree on human rights, small, limited and decentralized governments with lots of checks and balances and an ideology of voluntary existence and cooperation?
Eh, gays can still be gays all they want. As far as I understand, nobody in these olympics will judge you for being something. What does matter, is shoving it into your face. Some people don't WANT to see gay pride parades, or anything of the sort. However, I do understand that this may restrict the freedom of expressing yourself as a gay person in a relatively normal fashion as well. Regardless, such expressions shouldn't happen in public even if you are heterosexual imo, so no sexual bias here.
On August 07 2013 18:36 Ahzz wrote: Eh, gays can still be gays all they want. As far as I understand, nobody in these olympics will judge you for being something. What does matter, is shoving it into your face. Some people don't WANT to see gay pride parades, or anything of the sort. However, I do understand that this may restrict the freedom of expressing yourself as a gay person in a relatively normal fashion as well. Regardless, such expressions shouldn't happen in public even if you are heterosexual imo, so no sexual bias here.
no kissing your partner, holding hands, saying that gays are not the devil?
On August 06 2013 21:32 woreyour wrote: Russia is too manly for gays.
User was warned for this post
LOL, Empyrean really?
1st it is not a one word, it is a one liner that pretty much says for itself. Leaves things for readers to analyse and think for themselves.
But for the effort you are looking for I will explain and provide my opinion. I was restraining myself to provide opinionated and bias statements but here goes:
Russia for me comes as a harsh cold country, men are bred to be tougher, people are tougher. I think the old people who run the country have this deep of a pride they are not willing to have gay stuff in their country. They are not ready for gay fabulousness rainbow springkles.
They wanted to be the last bastion of manliness in this earth.
On August 02 2013 07:00 Djzapz wrote: Just read a thing about Canada's minister of foreign affairs saying that the Olympics are irrelevant because this heinous law affects the Russians 365 days every year.
Apparently, the US, UK and Canada will try to convince Russia to change the law before the Olympics though. But I don't know what we should expect.
O gee, the same countries that still have and/or had the same laws on the books just few years ago. That is like a rapist trying to convince another rapist not to rape.
As long as people believe the government can do whatever they want and have no limits, then government will do whatever they want and most often everything the people don't want.
Russia is a corrupt hell hole because of big government and people having the notion that government is god and can do whatever they want.
How about we all agree on human rights, small, limited and decentralized governments with lots of checks and balances and an ideology of voluntary existence and cooperation?
This has lasted for centuries, so it's unlikely to change fast.
On August 07 2013 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: Show nested quote +
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
That's not true at all though is it?
Britain hasn't done anything of the sort for centuries (not on our own soil anyway), Weimar Germany and even Bolshevik Russia were a hell of a lot less racist than the segregated south too.
No Bolshevik Russia wasn't it was intensely racist against non-Russians Ukrainians were kind of okay Byelorussians were okay Georgians were okay while Stalin was alive other than that you were a prime candidate for enemy of the state and relocation past Kuibyshev somewhere. They used to appoint Russians to high posts in non-Russian areas of the USSR as a deliberate insult to the people there and because they didn't trust them because they weren't Russian. They starved millions of Ukrainians to death to keep Russians in Moscow and St. Petersburg fed because who cares about Ukrainians.
Weimar Germany was very racist but not as openly racist as the South that didn't take long to change
Of course it's true Europe wasn't always more progressive than America man that's a post-war (WW2) development
On August 07 2013 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote: Show nested quote +
back then lynching was the progressive way to kill minorities compared to the rest of the world yes including europe.
I honestly can't think of many more posters that post nonsense the rate that you have over the past year.
I honestly can't think of how I could care more.
While arguing about the racism is USSR probably the most interesting case is the massive deportation of Crimean Tatars (there is a wiki article) to Uzbekistan, Siberia (and other distant territories), because of the alleged collaboration with Nazi Germany. The whole minority got punished.
On August 02 2013 07:00 Djzapz wrote: Just read a thing about Canada's minister of foreign affairs saying that the Olympics are irrelevant because this heinous law affects the Russians 365 days every year.
Apparently, the US, UK and Canada will try to convince Russia to change the law before the Olympics though. But I don't know what we should expect.
O gee, the same countries that still have and/or had the same laws on the books just few years ago. That is like a rapist trying to convince another rapist not to rape.
As long as people believe the government can do whatever they want and have no limits, then government will do whatever they want and most often everything the people don't want.
Russia is a corrupt hell hole because of big government and people having the notion that government is god and can do whatever they want.
How about we all agree on human rights, small, limited and decentralized governments with lots of checks and balances and an ideology of voluntary existence and cooperation?
Well small and decentralized tends to mean ineffective and arbitrary. Voluntary existence and cooperation is very much at the heart of democracy, really. The problem with libertarianism is that low trust societies have massive implicit costs to people's lives and well being. Breaking government down and such leads too often to exploitation and tragedies of the commons. Governments are supposed to enable trust in society. And when they fail this, they become problematic.
Of course limits and checks and balances are great. They need to be figured out by society though. Not that easy to figure out.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Just imagine if everyone in Russia is a man. Then Russia would be dead in a generation. Which is why they shouldn't give men rights. And people speaking for men's rights should be jailed.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
On August 07 2013 18:36 Ahzz wrote: Eh, gays can still be gays all they want. As far as I understand, nobody in these olympics will judge you for being something. What does matter, is shoving it into your face. Some people don't WANT to see gay pride parades, or anything of the sort. However, I do understand that this may restrict the freedom of expressing yourself as a gay person in a relatively normal fashion as well. Regardless, such expressions shouldn't happen in public even if you are heterosexual imo, so no sexual bias here.
A lot of people seem to say stuff like this. From my point of view, it's fake tolerance. I understand the argument (we shouldn't put our sexuality on the pedestal), but it seems like a way to to mask their homophobia for a lot of people. If you truly have no problem with gay couples holding hands in public, for example, (I assume not many people would be offended when they see a straight couple hold hands or kiss in public), then that's great, maybe you do have a point. It's just that a lot of people who say these things do not understand what homosexuality is and want to keep on discriminating by making sure that the minority "keeps their mouths shut". That's not a good stance.
Gay parades are not supposed to be about "please pay attention to me *because* I'm gay", it's more like "look at me I'm gay and it's not a big deal, I'm just a human being like you, please stop the mindless discrimination only for this single quality I have".
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
How would that happen? Gay-mind control rays? And why would you think Russia is being progressive on the matter, or anything involving civil liberties?
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
There's no answer, because it's totally ridiculous. Everyone isn't gay. It's like campaigning against infertile people because if everyone was infertile no-one would give birth. The problem is, not everyone is infertile so birth rates aren't a problem, and infertile people aren't hurting anyone and can't help it if they're infertile, and if you told someone else you were infertile, you don't get arrested by the state for it.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
How would that happen? Gay-mind control rays? And why would you think Russia is being progressive on the matter, or anything involving civil liberties?
Did you or did you not approve of society where everybody is gay?
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
I can answer it. Your theory of everyone becoming gay and the human race dying out is dumb and has not basis in reality. Find a better argument that doesn't involve the end of the human race.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
How would that happen? Gay-mind control rays? And why would you think Russia is being progressive on the matter, or anything involving civil liberties?
Did you or did you not approve of society where everybody is gay?
We are not having this argument. It has no basis in reality and is kind of stupid.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
How would that happen? Gay-mind control rays? And why would you think Russia is being progressive on the matter, or anything involving civil liberties?
Did you or did you not approve of society where everybody is gay?
Same to you about a society where everyone is male.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
How would that happen? Gay-mind control rays? And why would you think Russia is being progressive on the matter, or anything involving civil liberties?
Did you or did you not approve of society where everybody is gay?
do yourself a favour and go back to school.
you can not take something out of context and make statements with that.
but because you like them so much, here is something for you: imagine everyone in russia would just write on internet forums all day long. russia would break down in a day.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
I can answer it. Your theory of everyone becoming gay and the human race dying out is dumb and has not basis in reality. Find a better argument that doesn't involve the end of the human race.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
How would that happen? Gay-mind control rays? And why would you think Russia is being progressive on the matter, or anything involving civil liberties?
Did you or did you not approve of society where everybody is gay?
We are not having this argument. It has no basis in reality and is kind of stupid.
Its not my theory. I was just tring to tell that there is part of hipocricy about issue of gay rights. And Russia by no way is moving backward.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
I can answer it. Your theory of everyone becoming gay and the human race dying out is dumb and has not basis in reality. Find a better argument that doesn't involve the end of the human race.
On August 07 2013 21:59 MikeMM wrote:
On August 07 2013 21:54 Plansix wrote:
On August 07 2013 21:48 MikeMM wrote:
On August 07 2013 03:54 ComaDose wrote:
On August 07 2013 03:49 Feartheguru wrote:
On August 07 2013 03:39 Paljas wrote:
On August 07 2013 03:20 Kimaker wrote:
On August 07 2013 03:08 qotsager wrote: [quote]
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
How would that happen? Gay-mind control rays? And why would you think Russia is being progressive on the matter, or anything involving civil liberties?
Did you or did you not approve of society where everybody is gay?
We are not having this argument. It has no basis in reality and is kind of stupid.
Its not my theory. I was just tring to tell that there is part of hipocricy about issue of gay rights. And Russia by no way is moving forward.
If you are going to play devil’s advocate, you need to do a better job. The idea in devil’s advocate role is that you challenge the commonly accepted point of view with some reasonable counter arguments, like:
“Could it be that Russia is worried about violent protest or riots during the Olympics? Is there a history of violent clashes between pro and anti gay groups in Russia?”
You don’t say:
“Well if everyone is gay, then there are no babies and we all die.”
Edit: oh man, I see this discussion going great places really fast with the comment below VV
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
On August 07 2013 03:20 Kimaker wrote: [quote] Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
If you think I hate gays as a whole you are wrong. I support the idea that all humans deservs equal rights. I am not aware that in Russia rights of gay are violated. And this law only forbids propaganda involvement of minors and the youth. There is big difference between tolerance toward gays and propaganda of gay movement.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Wow what a solid argument, I may have to rethink my stance on equal rights for gays.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Human value doesn't come out of their ability to procreate
Newton died a virgin, does that undermine his contribution to society?
Your statement is void of reality, while accepting that people have different sexuality is accepting reality. LGBT and equality rallies in russia has been brutally punished and struck down to give the smallest example in response to your statement above over Russia's claim that they are ''only stopping propaganda''
On August 07 2013 03:39 Paljas wrote: [quote] yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
If you think I hate gays as a whole you are wrong. I support the idea that all humans deservs equal rights. I am not aware that in Russia rights of gay are violated. And this law only forbids propaganda involvement of minors and the youth. There is big difference between tolerance toward gays and propaganda of gay movement.
so how does the propaganda make sense then? do u think that a heterosexual kid or the whole youth could be converted to "gayness" by "propaganda"? by just seeing 2 men holding hands (which is also forbidden afaik)? i doubt that those kids in russia that turned gay by now were forced to watch gayporn in their childhood. 99% of them were raised as homophobic as ever and still it didn't make them straight. gay propaganda could either piss of racists/the church or serve gay empowerment, but not turn people gay. if it could, people also would be abel to magically switch back to heterosexuality, which every sane gay would do, if he knows that else he'd be either a second-class citizen oder beaten by cowards. xx
On August 07 2013 03:39 Paljas wrote: [quote] yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
If you think I hate gays as a whole you are wrong. I support the idea that all humans deservs equal rights. I am not aware that in Russia rights of gay are violated. And this law only forbids propaganda involvement of minors and the youth. There is big difference between tolerance toward gays and propaganda of gay movement.
Really? Beacuse the word "propaganda" is normally used to discribe promoting ideas that people don't like. It is really hard to be tolerant toward gays, but then prohibit their ability to protest or post things in support of their rights.
On August 07 2013 03:49 Feartheguru wrote: [quote]
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
If you think I hate gays as a whole you are wrong. I support the idea that all humans deservs equal rights. I am not aware that in Russia rights of gay are violated. And this law only forbids propaganda involvement of minors and the youth. There is big difference between tolerance toward gays and propaganda of gay movement.
Really? Beacuse the word "propaganda" is normally used to discribe promoting ideas that people don't like. It is really hard to be tolerant toward gays, but then prohibit their ability to protest or post things in support of their rights.
yes it is xx rt (as hundreds of years of russian history proudly demonstrated)
On August 07 2013 03:20 Kimaker wrote: [quote] Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
"people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss"
Realy? This i find verry hard to believe, i think its alot more complicated. To me it would make more sense if sexual preferences come to the surface in peoples puberty, though i am open to the idea that genetics do play some role in this. 5 year olds are not bussy with sex, they dont have a sexual identity at all nor do they think about it.
Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
On August 07 2013 03:39 Paljas wrote: [quote] yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
"people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss"
Realy? This i find verry hard to believe, i think its alot more complicated.
hmmmm... ok neither one of the sides got proof. i don't know, maybe they later turn gay, but it's not a choice. but do u think that gays choose to be gay? (u didn't imply that, i am just asking c they aren't stupid, my dear. no idiot would choose to become gay just to be officially less worth and then kill himself. if gays could turn straight most of them would, i think. but they can't. they tried but failed. either accept it or try to systematically eradicate them. your choice.
@MidKnight 100% agreed. i don't see how ppl can logically try to deny what u just said. thx 4 clarifying and spilling hot truthtea all over the floor *bows*
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
Its an interesting question, personally i think everyone is bisexual with either the hetero or the gay side dominating, so everyone is at least a little bit gay. For example manny hetero,s in jail are practicing gay sex, because there is no alternative. From an evolutionary point of vieuw it would make sense though to think that the default setting is dominant hetero sexual. Is beeing gay a choise? i realy dont know,i do think that for at least some people this is a choise. And why would people not choose to be gay?, i can imagine this going for some countrys like rusia but i am from the netherlands and gays are treated completely equall here, there are almost no disadvantages to beeing gay overhere. I can think of several arguments why people would choose to be gay, like for example the desire to be a rebel and do controversial things their parents and environment do not aproove of, and the gay scene does have awesome events and partys (wich manny hetero sexuals visit as well).
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
Gay people reproduce as well as everyone else if you don't restrict their right to be parents.
On August 07 2013 23:41 Rassy wrote: Its an interesting question, personally i think everyone is bisexual with either the hetero or the gay side dominating, so everyone is at least a little bit gay. For example manny hetero,s in jail are practicing gay sex, because there is no alternative. From an evolutionary point of vieuw it would make sense though to think that the default setting is dominant hetero sexual. Is beeing gay a choise? i realy dont know,i do think that for at least some people this is a choise. And why would people not choose to be gay?, i can imagine this going for some countrys like rusia but i am from the netherlands and gays are threated completely equall here, there are no disadvantages to beeing gay overhere. I can think of several arguments why people would choose to be gay, like for example the desire to be a rebel and do controversial things their parents and environment do not aproove of.
That may also be, that our society just created that barrier, that there really is no "orientation". i also don't know. but i can assure you of 1 thing: 99% of str8s find sexual interaction between 2 men disgusting. they would never want to practice homosexual actions. and it's stupid 2 think that someday they just completely forget that they are disgusted or weirded out by it and become gay lol. so the choice thing is medieval imho. netherlands all the way btw! trust me: it's not worth trading the chance to be respected, marrying a woman and get a family with the option of being hated by your family, seen as a second class human and die in misery (or shoot themselves coz they're fucking done with it, which i understand). not a straight guy would ever consider loosing it all just to become gay and "rebellious". it's note ven logical than he can just activate desires for the same sex before and practially loose all those for the opposite sex. it's not a fair trade, as i said.
the guy talking about Russia's birthrate has a valid point. Last I saw it was at 1.76, which means (2 = flatline), their population is decreasing at a rate of 12% per life expectancy, i suppose
On August 07 2013 23:53 Bill Murray wrote: the guy talking about Russia's birthrate has a valid point. Last I saw it was at 1.76, which means (2 = flatline), their population is decreasing at a rate of 12% per life expectancy, i suppose
yes it is decreasing, we all know that. but gays don't have anything to do with it.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
Gay people reproduce as well as everyone else if you don't restrict their right to be parents.
That may also be, that our society just created that barrier, that there really is no "orientation". i also don't know. but i can assure you of 1 thing: 99% of str8s find sexual interaction between 2 men disgusting. they would never want to practice homosexual actions. and it's stupid 2 think that someday they just completely forget that they are disgusted or weirded out by it and become gay lol.
Yup this goes for me as well,i find the idea also "disgusting" and i never had dreams or fantasys about beeing gay, yet i still have kissed a man once when i was verry drunk lol and i didnt realy regret it when i was sober (though i also had absolutely no desire to repeat it and further explore it) and i think this goes for quiet a few strait people in the clubbing scene. Its kinda funny btw, manny man who are disgusted by the idea of 2 males having sex love seeing 2 girls making out.Though i dont think females have a similar fantasy about guys.
everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
Gay people reproduce as well as everyone else if you don't restrict their right to be parents.
What...?
Being gay does not prevent you from raising children or getting pregant by less tradional means(aka, science).
On August 08 2013 00:00 Rassy wrote: That may also be, that our society just created that barrier, that there really is no "orientation". i also don't know. but i can assure you of 1 thing: 99% of str8s find sexual interaction between 2 men disgusting. they would never want to practice homosexual actions. and it's stupid 2 think that someday they just completely forget that they are disgusted or weirded out by it and become gay lol.
Yup this goes for me as well,i find the idea also "disgusting" and i never had dreams or fantasys about beeing gay, yet i still have kissed a man once when i was verry drunk lol and i didnt realy regret it when i was sober (though i also had absolutely no desire to repeat it and further explore it) and i think this goes for quiet a few strait people in the clubbing scene. Its kinda funny btw, manny man who are disgusted by the idea of 2 males having sex love seeing 2 girls making out.Though i dont think females have a similar fantasy about guys.
gays find the idea to sleep with a girl "disgusting" but still they aren't stupid enough to say "str8 is sin". at least they accept the other sexual orientation. why straight ppl can't do that... i don't know. well i think people should follow their emotions and not hide themselves all their life. it's not fun/efficient. in the age of information ignorance is a choice †
oh and yes str8 guys watch lesbian porn but say "gay is sin" rofl. their point of view is disgusting
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
Gay people reproduce as well as everyone else if you don't restrict their right to be parents.
What...?
Being gay does not prevent you from raising children or getting pregant by less tradional means(aka, science).
aka the stuff russia openly ignores lol. "burning hearts and burying them" (words of a russian politic) doesn't seem scientific reasonable.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
This could be the worst argument ever.
More gay people will not stay in the closet and thus not go into a traditional marriage and have children? Obviously gay people don't stop straight people from having kids.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
The outwardness of gays means those people who come out of the closet wouldn't have children? I really thought I could give people on TL the benefit of the doubt and not explain the most simple arguments?
Inb4 I get attacked for hating gays when I'm just pointing out a possible Russian P.O.V.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
This could be the worst argument ever.
More gay people will not stay in the closet and thus not go into a traditional marriage and have children? Obviously gay people don't stop straight people from having kids.
This likely is the worst rebuttle ever.
Because you provide no evidence to back up those facts. Your argument is "If they can be openly gay, they won't fuck women and then we won't get babies. Our population problem will continue due to this."
Russia's population problem has nothing to do with gay anything. Maybe they should work on having straight couples have more than 1 child.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
The outwardness of gays means those people who come out of the closet wouldn't have children? I really thought I could give people on TL the benefit of the doubt and not explain the most simple arguments?
Inb4 I get attacked for hating gays when I'm just pointing out a possible Russian P.O.V.
so u think that "most" of the gays marry a woman? they stay alone their whole life and die without any children, thought of that? why should gay ppl be forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they don't want to? or why should thay be forced to have children at all? would u like if the government would force you to fuck someone u don't want to fuck or raise kids (u know science if u want to avoid intercourse) u don't want to have? yes maybe it's like this in russia, but i think it's terribly wrong to force them to marry women, indirectly at least.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
This could be the worst argument ever.
More gay people will not stay in the closet and thus not go into a traditional marriage and have children? Obviously gay people don't stop straight people from having kids.
This likely is the worst rebuttle ever.
Because you provide no evidence to back up those facts. Your argument is "If they can be openly gay, they won't fuck women and then we won't get babies. Our population problem will continue due to this."
Russia's population problem has nothing to do with gay anything. Maybe they should work on having straight couples have more than 1 child.
First of all I never claimed Russia's population problem "continues due to this" (although I did suggested it might be slightly exacerbated by it), so stop putting words in my mouth...
Openly gay couples have less children (through biological means, adoption doesn't count) than normal couples do. This is so obvious I'm not gonna waste time providing evidence.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
The outwardness of gays means those people who come out of the closet wouldn't have children? I really thought I could give people on TL the benefit of the doubt and not explain the most simple arguments?
Inb4 I get attacked for hating gays when I'm just pointing out a possible Russian P.O.V.
so u think that "most" of the gays marry a woman? they stay alone their whole life and die without any children, thought of that? why should gay ppl be forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they don't want to? or why should thay be forced to have children at all? would u like if the government would force you to fuck someone u don't want to fuck or raise kids (u know science if u want to avoid intercourse) u don't want to have? yes maybe it's like this in russia, but i think it's terribly wrong to force them to marry women, indirectly at least.
Yes, in societies where homosexuality is frowned upon many gay people go into traditional marriages, I should be shocked this is not obvious to you, but given your lack of common sense shown earlier I can't say that I am.
Regardless, if a single gay person goes into a traditional marriage then your point is irrelevant.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
The outwardness of gays means those people who come out of the closet wouldn't have children? I really thought I could give people on TL the benefit of the doubt and not explain the most simple arguments?
Inb4 I get attacked for hating gays when I'm just pointing out a possible Russian P.O.V.
so u think that "most" of the gays marry a woman? they stay alone their whole life and die without any children, thought of that? why should gay ppl be forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they don't want to? or why should thay be forced to have children at all? would u like if the government would force you to fuck someone u don't want to fuck or raise kids (u know science if u want to avoid intercourse) u don't want to have? yes maybe it's like this in russia, but i think it's terribly wrong to force them to marry women, indirectly at least.
Yes, in societies where homosexuality is frowned upon many gay people go into traditional marriages, I should be shocked this is no obvious to you, but given your lack of common sense shown earlier I can't say that I am.
Regardless, if a single gay person goes into a traditional marriage then your point is irrelevant.
k sorry i expressed myself a bit wrong: so u think it's good and morally correct to force gays into going into traditional marriages because they are scared to live as they want? if yes then you're a disgusting human being.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
This could be the worst argument ever.
More gay people will not stay in the closet and thus not go into a traditional marriage and have children? Obviously gay people don't stop straight people from having kids.
This likely is the worst rebuttle ever.
Because you provide no evidence to back up those facts. Your argument is "If they can be openly gay, they won't fuck women and then we won't get babies. Our population problem will continue due to this."
Russia's population problem has nothing to do with gay anything. Maybe they should work on having straight couples have more than 1 child.
First of all I never claimed Russia's population problem "continues due to this" (although I did suggested it might be exacerbated by it), so stop putting words in my mouth...
Openly gay couples have less children (through biological means, adoption doesn't count) than normal couples do. This is so obvious I'm not gonna waste time providing evidence.
Its not obvious is any way. There is no proof that preventing someone from being openly gay causes them to enter into relationships with the opposite sex and have children. The few people who do enter those relationships are likely in denied as to their sexuality and would not live openly even if it as an option. And there is no evidence that the number of gay people in straight relationships is large enough to have any impact on population growth.
Your argument is beyond flawed. It can be boiled down to: Gay people have to be fucking someone. If they can't be in an open gay relationship, they must be fucking someone of the opposite sex. Fucking the opposite sex leads to babies. Openly gay couples means their will be less babies, because they will fuck fewer people of the opposite sex.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
The outwardness of gays means those people who come out of the closet wouldn't have children? I really thought I could give people on TL the benefit of the doubt and not explain the most simple arguments?
Inb4 I get attacked for hating gays when I'm just pointing out a possible Russian P.O.V.
so u think that "most" of the gays marry a woman? they stay alone their whole life and die without any children, thought of that? why should gay ppl be forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they don't want to? or why should thay be forced to have children at all? would u like if the government would force you to fuck someone u don't want to fuck or raise kids (u know science if u want to avoid intercourse) u don't want to have? yes maybe it's like this in russia, but i think it's terribly wrong to force them to marry women, indirectly at least.
Yes, in societies where homosexuality is frowned upon many gay people go into traditional marriages, I should be shocked this is no obvious to you, but given your lack of common sense shown earlier I can't say that I am.
Regardless, if a single gay person goes into a traditional marriage then your point is irrelevant.
k sorry i expressed myself a bit wrong: so u think it's good and morally correct to force gays into going into traditional marriages because they are scared to live as they want? if yes then you're a disgusting human being.
Did you read my inb4? ITS IN THE POST YOU JUST QUOTED. I never said gays should be forced to do ANYTHING, I'm pointing out a possible reason the government might want to supress gay acceptance in Russian society, so don't go all holier than thou on me.
You know why I put that inb4? Because I knew from the shit you've been posting that once you realized your point makes no sense you would immediately resort to personal attacks.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
This could be the worst argument ever.
More gay people will not stay in the closet and thus not go into a traditional marriage and have children? Obviously gay people don't stop straight people from having kids.
This likely is the worst rebuttle ever.
Because you provide no evidence to back up those facts. Your argument is "If they can be openly gay, they won't fuck women and then we won't get babies. Our population problem will continue due to this."
Russia's population problem has nothing to do with gay anything. Maybe they should work on having straight couples have more than 1 child.
First of all I never claimed Russia's population problem "continues due to this" (although I did suggested it might be exacerbated by it), so stop putting words in my mouth...
Openly gay couples have less children (through biological means, adoption doesn't count) than normal couples do. This is so obvious I'm not gonna waste time providing evidence.
Its not obvious is any way. There is no proof that preventing someone from being openly gay causes them to enter into relationships with the opposite sex and have children. The few people who do enter those relationships are likely in denied as to their sexuality and would not live openly even if it as an option.
Your argument is beyond flawed. It can be boiled down to: Gay people have to be fucking someone. If they can't be in an open gay relationship, they must be fucking someone of the opposite sex. Fucking the opposite sex leads to babies. Openly gay couples means their will be less babies, because they will fuck fewer people of the opposite sex.
Are you gonna strawman every post I make, if so just don't respond to this. (Or if it'd make you feel better you can get the last word, I'm ok with that)
In societies where homosexuality is not accepted, some of them DO enter into traditional marriages to avoid social stigma, or to feel like they are living a normal life. How is this anything but undeniable fact?
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
The outwardness of gays means those people who come out of the closet wouldn't have children? I really thought I could give people on TL the benefit of the doubt and not explain the most simple arguments?
Inb4 I get attacked for hating gays when I'm just pointing out a possible Russian P.O.V.
so u think that "most" of the gays marry a woman? they stay alone their whole life and die without any children, thought of that? why should gay ppl be forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they don't want to? or why should thay be forced to have children at all? would u like if the government would force you to fuck someone u don't want to fuck or raise kids (u know science if u want to avoid intercourse) u don't want to have? yes maybe it's like this in russia, but i think it's terribly wrong to force them to marry women, indirectly at least.
Yes, in societies where homosexuality is frowned upon many gay people go into traditional marriages, I should be shocked this is no obvious to you, but given your lack of common sense shown earlier I can't say that I am.
Regardless, if a single gay person goes into a traditional marriage then your point is irrelevant.
k sorry i expressed myself a bit wrong: so u think it's good and morally correct to force gays into going into traditional marriages because they are scared to live as they want? if yes then you're a disgusting human being.
Did you read my inb4? ITS IN THE POST YOU JUST QUOTED. I never said gays should be forced to do ANYTHING, I'm pointing out a possible reason the government might want to supress gay acceptance in Russian society, so don't go all holier than thou on me.
You know why I put that inb4? Because I knew from the shit you've been posting that once you realized your point makes no sense you would immediately resort to personal attacks.
Rofl. Sorry bless my poor english + skipping the last sentence. Yes, i think it's pretty obvious that the government does it because of your theory. Not 100%, but it may be. As i overlooked the last sentence i guessed u thought it's right. Sorry =( Tho u insulted me too, which is kinda 2faced, considering what you said before.
about ur reply b4: yes gays do that, i know that and that's also quite obvious, i mean that they sure don't want to do it, which is also obvious
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
The outwardness of gays means those people who come out of the closet wouldn't have children? I really thought I could give people on TL the benefit of the doubt and not explain the most simple arguments?
Inb4 I get attacked for hating gays when I'm just pointing out a possible Russian P.O.V.
so u think that "most" of the gays marry a woman? they stay alone their whole life and die without any children, thought of that? why should gay ppl be forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they don't want to? or why should thay be forced to have children at all? would u like if the government would force you to fuck someone u don't want to fuck or raise kids (u know science if u want to avoid intercourse) u don't want to have? yes maybe it's like this in russia, but i think it's terribly wrong to force them to marry women, indirectly at least.
Yes, in societies where homosexuality is frowned upon many gay people go into traditional marriages, I should be shocked this is no obvious to you, but given your lack of common sense shown earlier I can't say that I am.
Regardless, if a single gay person goes into a traditional marriage then your point is irrelevant.
k sorry i expressed myself a bit wrong: so u think it's good and morally correct to force gays into going into traditional marriages because they are scared to live as they want? if yes then you're a disgusting human being.
Did you read my inb4? ITS IN THE POST YOU JUST QUOTED. I never said gays should be forced to do ANYTHING, I'm pointing out a possible reason the government might want to supress gay acceptance in Russian society, so don't go all holier than thou on me.
You know why I put that inb4? Because I knew from the shit you've been posting that once you realized your point makes no sense you would immediately resort to personal attacks.
Rofl. Sorry bless my poor english + skipping the last sentence. Yes, i think it's pretty obvious that the government does it because of your theory. Not 100%, but it may be. As i overlooked the last sentence i guessed u thought it's right. Sorry =( Tho u insulted me too, which is kinda 2faced, considering what you said before.
Well it's not so obvious I guess, since that's the topic of my other ongoing argument here.
And yes, I agree that gays shouldn't be forced into traditional marriages against their will to be used as repoductive tools for the state.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
and how could the "outward-ness of gays" possibly affect str8 couples to produce more human larva (babies or whatever)? oppressing gays won't change the birthrate, it will drop faster than taylors panties anyway. imho they search for the solution in wrong places.
The outwardness of gays means those people who come out of the closet wouldn't have children? I really thought I could give people on TL the benefit of the doubt and not explain the most simple arguments?
Inb4 I get attacked for hating gays when I'm just pointing out a possible Russian P.O.V.
so u think that "most" of the gays marry a woman? they stay alone their whole life and die without any children, thought of that? why should gay ppl be forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they don't want to? or why should thay be forced to have children at all? would u like if the government would force you to fuck someone u don't want to fuck or raise kids (u know science if u want to avoid intercourse) u don't want to have? yes maybe it's like this in russia, but i think it's terribly wrong to force them to marry women, indirectly at least.
Yes, in societies where homosexuality is frowned upon many gay people go into traditional marriages, I should be shocked this is no obvious to you, but given your lack of common sense shown earlier I can't say that I am.
Regardless, if a single gay person goes into a traditional marriage then your point is irrelevant.
k sorry i expressed myself a bit wrong: so u think it's good and morally correct to force gays into going into traditional marriages because they are scared to live as they want? if yes then you're a disgusting human being.
Did you read my inb4? ITS IN THE POST YOU JUST QUOTED. I never said gays should be forced to do ANYTHING, I'm pointing out a possible reason the government might want to supress gay acceptance in Russian society, so don't go all holier than thou on me.
You know why I put that inb4? Because I knew from the shit you've been posting that once you realized your point makes no sense you would immediately resort to personal attacks.
Rofl. Sorry bless my poor english + skipping the last sentence. Yes, i think it's pretty obvious that the government does it because of your theory. Not 100%, but it may be. As i overlooked the last sentence i guessed u thought it's right. Sorry =( Tho u insulted me too, which is kinda 2faced, considering what you said before.
Well it's not so obvious I guess, since that's the topic of my other ongoing argument here.
Hmmm... i think either coz of your theory, cause they want to keep them gays pressed etc or coz they are just stubborn and stupid. I don't know. I think because they are culturally homophobic and stubborn, but i think the government won't rely on they beliefs whatsoever to create laws.
edit: yes sorry, i got u wrong. still u dirty bichlady insulted me be4. k but we have a similar opinion so it's fine about that
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
That is absurd notion, one that shows how (with all due respect) stupid you are.
Imagine you were sterile because of a DNA trait.
Suppose we would need to take away your rights, then torture you, rape you and then finally kill you because you can not procreate or we feel being unable to have fertile sperm is bad.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
That is absurd notion, one that shows how (with all due respect) stupid you are.
Imagine you were sterile because of a DNA trait.
Suppose we would need to take away your rights, then torture you, rape you and then finally kill you because you can not procreate or we feel being unable to have fertile sperm is bad.
See how that works?
hold up i'm praying 2 my haters that this guy finally will understand it. thx for ur post
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
This could be the worst argument ever.
More gay people will not stay in the closet and thus not go into a traditional marriage and have children? Obviously gay people don't stop straight people from having kids.
This likely is the worst rebuttle ever.
Because you provide no evidence to back up those facts. Your argument is "If they can be openly gay, they won't fuck women and then we won't get babies. Our population problem will continue due to this."
Russia's population problem has nothing to do with gay anything. Maybe they should work on having straight couples have more than 1 child.
First of all I never claimed Russia's population problem "continues due to this" (although I did suggested it might be exacerbated by it), so stop putting words in my mouth...
Openly gay couples have less children (through biological means, adoption doesn't count) than normal couples do. This is so obvious I'm not gonna waste time providing evidence.
Its not obvious is any way. There is no proof that preventing someone from being openly gay causes them to enter into relationships with the opposite sex and have children. The few people who do enter those relationships are likely in denied as to their sexuality and would not live openly even if it as an option.
Your argument is beyond flawed. It can be boiled down to: Gay people have to be fucking someone. If they can't be in an open gay relationship, they must be fucking someone of the opposite sex. Fucking the opposite sex leads to babies. Openly gay couples means their will be less babies, because they will fuck fewer people of the opposite sex.
Are you gonna strawman every post I make, if so just don't respond to this. (Or if it'd make you feel better you can get the last word, I'm ok with that)
In societies where homosexuality is not accepted, some of them DO enter into traditional marriages to avoid social stigma, or to feel like they are living a normal life. How is this anything but undeniable fact?
It isn't deniable, you are 100% correct on that. However, your orgional argument was:
"The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal."
This argument centers around the idea that there are a large number of gay people in traditional relationships due to the fact that can cannot live openly. People are arguing that this is not a signifigant number in any way and would have no effect on the population. As you have provided no evidence and are only relying on the fact that there must be some gay people in traditional relationships, people are pointing out the flaws in the argument.
Yes, you are correct that their are people who are gay in traditional relationships all over, that was never in question. However, you have failed to prove that those people are in large enough numbers to have an effect on population growth across the Nation of Russia. And common sense would say that this is likely not the case.
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
This could be the worst argument ever.
More gay people will not stay in the closet and thus not go into a traditional marriage and have children? Obviously gay people don't stop straight people from having kids.
This likely is the worst rebuttle ever.
Because you provide no evidence to back up those facts. Your argument is "If they can be openly gay, they won't fuck women and then we won't get babies. Our population problem will continue due to this."
Russia's population problem has nothing to do with gay anything. Maybe they should work on having straight couples have more than 1 child.
First of all I never claimed Russia's population problem "continues due to this" (although I did suggested it might be exacerbated by it), so stop putting words in my mouth...
Openly gay couples have less children (through biological means, adoption doesn't count) than normal couples do. This is so obvious I'm not gonna waste time providing evidence.
Its not obvious is any way. There is no proof that preventing someone from being openly gay causes them to enter into relationships with the opposite sex and have children. The few people who do enter those relationships are likely in denied as to their sexuality and would not live openly even if it as an option.
Your argument is beyond flawed. It can be boiled down to: Gay people have to be fucking someone. If they can't be in an open gay relationship, they must be fucking someone of the opposite sex. Fucking the opposite sex leads to babies. Openly gay couples means their will be less babies, because they will fuck fewer people of the opposite sex.
Are you gonna strawman every post I make, if so just don't respond to this. (Or if it'd make you feel better you can get the last word, I'm ok with that)
In societies where homosexuality is not accepted, some of them DO enter into traditional marriages to avoid social stigma, or to feel like they are living a normal life. How is this anything but undeniable fact?
It isn't deniable, you are 100% correct on that. However, your orgional argument was:
"The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal."
This argument centers around the idea that there are a large number of gay people in traditional relationships due to the fact that can cannot live openly. People are arguing that this is not a signifigant number in any way and would have no effect on the population. As you have provided no evidence and are only relying on the fact that there must be some gay people in traditional relationships, people are pointing out the flaws in the argument.
Yes, you are correct that their are people who are gay in traditional relationships all over, that was never in question. However, you have failed to prove that those people are in large enough numbers to have an effect on population growth across the Nation of Russia. And common sense would say that this is likely not the case.
Ok, I apologize for the misunderstanding here. I wrote that purely in the sense that since the population issue is such a "big deal" for Russia, anything that might exacerbate it further is a major issue for them. I did not intent to suggest that allowing gays to be open would make a substantive difference. So I had no idea why you were trying to suggest I meant that until you quoted what I original said and how it can easily be interpreted that way.
Russia also has an incredibly high death rate, especially men. Life expentancy of men is massively disparate from women. You want to talk about longevity, start there.
Maybe stressing over where people put their penises is killing them.
On August 08 2013 00:49 DoubleReed wrote: Russia also has an incredibly high death rate, especially men. Life expentancy of men is massively disparate from women. You want to talk about longevity, start there.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
On August 07 2013 23:21 MidKnight wrote: Yeah, just like we can see from some of the people posting a huge problem is simply lack of understanding of homosexuality.
Some people do actually believe that "more people will be become gay if we accept that being gay is not a bad thing". That's obviously a completely nonsensical and ludicrous statement if you're educated on the matter, but a lot of people do think that way and make arguments based on that assumption which is simply wrong. Of course, any kind of study which conflicts with their beliefs is deemed as "western propaganda". It's interesting to observe.
If people from that region realized that sexual attraction is not a choice and that there's nothing to suggest that the % of population which is gay increased in the recent times due to it being more accepted in society (only that more people are "coming out of the closet" and are more comfortable with accepting and embracing who they are instead of pretending to be straight and living their lives in misery), tolerance would increase. It's just that these ridiculous ideas are so deeply ingrained into the culture of these countries, that people just keep on believing them.
The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal.
How will this ever be a problem? How will more openly gay people EVER stop people from having kids? Its not like men are going to leave their wives on mass once they know they are can be openly gay.
This could be the worst argument ever.
More gay people will not stay in the closet and thus not go into a traditional marriage and have children? Obviously gay people don't stop straight people from having kids.
This likely is the worst rebuttle ever.
Because you provide no evidence to back up those facts. Your argument is "If they can be openly gay, they won't fuck women and then we won't get babies. Our population problem will continue due to this."
Russia's population problem has nothing to do with gay anything. Maybe they should work on having straight couples have more than 1 child.
First of all I never claimed Russia's population problem "continues due to this" (although I did suggested it might be exacerbated by it), so stop putting words in my mouth...
Openly gay couples have less children (through biological means, adoption doesn't count) than normal couples do. This is so obvious I'm not gonna waste time providing evidence.
Its not obvious is any way. There is no proof that preventing someone from being openly gay causes them to enter into relationships with the opposite sex and have children. The few people who do enter those relationships are likely in denied as to their sexuality and would not live openly even if it as an option.
Your argument is beyond flawed. It can be boiled down to: Gay people have to be fucking someone. If they can't be in an open gay relationship, they must be fucking someone of the opposite sex. Fucking the opposite sex leads to babies. Openly gay couples means their will be less babies, because they will fuck fewer people of the opposite sex.
Are you gonna strawman every post I make, if so just don't respond to this. (Or if it'd make you feel better you can get the last word, I'm ok with that)
In societies where homosexuality is not accepted, some of them DO enter into traditional marriages to avoid social stigma, or to feel like they are living a normal life. How is this anything but undeniable fact?
It isn't deniable, you are 100% correct on that. However, your orgional argument was:
"The number of gay people would not increase, but the number of outwardly gay people would. In a country like Russia with a plumetting birthrate, that actually is a big deal."
This argument centers around the idea that there are a large number of gay people in traditional relationships due to the fact that can cannot live openly. People are arguing that this is not a signifigant number in any way and would have no effect on the population. As you have provided no evidence and are only relying on the fact that there must be some gay people in traditional relationships, people are pointing out the flaws in the argument.
Yes, you are correct that their are people who are gay in traditional relationships all over, that was never in question. However, you have failed to prove that those people are in large enough numbers to have an effect on population growth across the Nation of Russia. And common sense would say that this is likely not the case.
Ok, I apologize for the misunderstanding here. I wrote that purely in the sense that since the population issue is such a "big deal" for Russia, anything that might exacerbate it further is a major issue for them. I did not intent to suggest that allowing gays to be open would make a substantive difference. So I had no idea why you were trying to suggest I meant that until you quoted what I original said and how it can easily be interpreted that way.
No problem, it seemed like a weird argument to be so invested in. I have had the same problems when going back to an origional post and see "Oh man, that does look silly if you read it like that." Though I may not have been as gracious as you are about it.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
I somehow doubt the police actually don't care if someone is murdered. They might not record the murder as a "hatecrime", but surely they can't ignore a body? Please note, I have absolutely no clue - it just seems mindblowing if they cover up murders.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
I somehow doubt the police actually don't care if someone is murdered. They might not record the murder as a "hatecrime", but surely they can't ignore a body? Please note, I have absolutely no clue - it just seems mindblowing if they cover up murders.
russia is not just "against propaganda" they would exterminate gays if they could. well there were alot of beatings (one was a nationalist group that hunts down gay teens and then tortures them). a few men were killed. most of those aren't even recorded. i doubt that they react on them. simply nobody cares about hate crimes against gays over there, so there won't be noone to change it. they aren't actively hiding it or covering it up i think, they secretly find it good when they are killed off and don't bother to punish the ppl who murder them or torture teens wtf?
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
I somehow doubt the police actually don't care if someone is murdered. They might not record the murder as a "hatecrime", but surely they can't ignore a body? Please note, I have absolutely no clue - it just seems mindblowing if they cover up murders.
They don't have to cover it up as just not really devote resources to it. They just have to not particularly care.
Edit: this isn't at all unusual for cops in any country. Think of it from their point of view. "Why should I care if some [insert slur] gets murdered?"
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
I somehow doubt the police actually don't care if someone is murdered. They might not record the murder as a "hatecrime", but surely they can't ignore a body? Please note, I have absolutely no clue - it just seems mindblowing if they cover up murders.
They don't have to cover it up as just not really devote resources to it. They just have to not particularly care.
On August 07 2013 03:49 Feartheguru wrote: [quote]
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
If you think I hate gays as a whole you are wrong. I support the idea that all humans deservs equal rights. I am not aware that in Russia rights of gay are violated. And this law only forbids propaganda involvement of minors and the youth. There is big difference between tolerance toward gays and propaganda of gay movement.
Really? Beacuse the word "propaganda" is normally used to discribe promoting ideas that people don't like. It is really hard to be tolerant toward gays, but then prohibit their ability to protest or post things in support of their rights.
lol propaganda is not just promoting ideas people don't like. It's a form of media manipulation to sway public opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.
A modern example involving Edward Snowden.....http://www.juancole.com/2013/06/government-whistleblower-snowden.html
Anyways, I kinda view this whole issue as "their house, their rules". Even though I don't really agree with their views on same sex relationships, I can at least understand where they're coming from, particularly for a country with an underpopulation problem.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
I think you are completely missing my point. What I am saying is that their official stance on this issue is not that important. It's only meant as a way to downplay Russia a little so that the US can save some face after she takes in Snowden. Whether the gays are treated fairly or brutally murdered isn't exactly the point I am talking about Why the Russia chose to announce this statement public-ally at this sensitive time is my main point.
Just look at how suddenly everyone's attention to Russia is negative and the US seemingly better as they have just passed the gay marriage right in some states
On August 07 2013 03:54 ComaDose wrote: [quote] I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
If you think I hate gays as a whole you are wrong. I support the idea that all humans deservs equal rights. I am not aware that in Russia rights of gay are violated. And this law only forbids propaganda involvement of minors and the youth. There is big difference between tolerance toward gays and propaganda of gay movement.
Really? Beacuse the word "propaganda" is normally used to discribe promoting ideas that people don't like. It is really hard to be tolerant toward gays, but then prohibit their ability to protest or post things in support of their rights.
I can at least understand where they're coming from, particularly for a country with an underpopulation problem.
Could you clarify? I'd rather make sure I understand you correctly before I respond.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
I somehow doubt the police actually don't care if someone is murdered. They might not record the murder as a "hatecrime", but surely they can't ignore a body? Please note, I have absolutely no clue - it just seems mindblowing if they cover up murders.
They don't have to cover it up as just not really devote resources to it. They just have to not particularly care.
Edit: this isn't at all unusual for cops in any country. Think of it from their point of view. "Why should I care if some [insert slur] gets murdered?"
That line of thought is just so alien to me. My mind has once again been boggled Thanks for explaining to both of you though.
On August 07 2013 01:34 Kimaker wrote: It's not like the law is actively pursuing people and putting them in camps for being gay, it's just prohibiting those annoying parades.
even IF that law "only" does that, note it is formulated extremely vaguely and therefor might turn into a convenient excuse for doing just what you said it was not supposed to, there is some really messed up shit going on (as several people have mentioned), directed against the homosexual community, that needs to stop. and if you deem those parades annoying, we should probably outrule any kind of parade ever, cause someone is gonna be annoyed by them.
Oh God...shouldn't have written anything....
I'm not saying this from the perspective of "This is what I believe". I'm framing it in terms of Russian sovereignty and different cultural values.
What would you have us do? Drive tanks into Russia to protect gay rights? Boycott the Olympics? (never gonna happen in this political climate). If you read my first post all the way through I'm less concerned with Russia and more concerned with how this could be taken advantage of by Western nations (particularly the US) since being upset is just...I don't know, it feels futile?
yeah, obama should thank putin for discriminating gays, becasue the USA can take advantage of it.
or, you know, he could act like a decent human being and be upset. even tho this feels futile to you.
I would like to support the opinion stated ever so eloquently by the contributor called LaContra. It is indeed not the homophobia of one man or possibly one government, it is the homophobia of a whole nation and it is but one part of an ingrained and integral part of the cultural make-up of Eastern European and Russian nations, one that is not going to disappear overnight based on a simple gesture from a nation not long ago considered the enemy and even now considered at best spoiled and liberal. You may wish for a simple show of solidarity to an oppressed majority or for a show of protest against the Russian political system, however what you will be showing to the overwhelming majority of Russian people is simply that you consider your beliefs, motivations and ways of life better than theirs, you will be showing ingratitude and a bullish attitude. I am really sorry that I can not explain this better, but your wish for a sign of solidarity simply reads to me as childishly spitting in the face of your host (Russian people), because he is unable to accommodate your wish for profound change by a certain deadline.
I don't want a profound change by a certain deadline, I want them to stop actively moving backwards.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
oh wow. So you are implying that gays don't want kids? Which is totally wrong. Go read at least some basic stuff about homosexuals before judging them.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
I somehow doubt the police actually don't care if someone is murdered. They might not record the murder as a "hatecrime", but surely they can't ignore a body? Please note, I have absolutely no clue - it just seems mindblowing if they cover up murders.
They don't have to cover it up as just not really devote resources to it. They just have to not particularly care.
Edit: this isn't at all unusual for cops in any country. Think of it from their point of view. "Why should I care if some [insert slur] gets murdered?"
That line of thought is just so alien to me. My mind has once again been boggled Thanks for explaining to both of you though.
np <33 it's only 80% as fucked up as it sounds maybe, coz some countries actually kill 4 beign gay
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
Pffff, we've never taken the apolitical thing that seriously. Honestly if NK was hosting the Olympics we probably wouldn't attend. Think about if Saudi Arabia hosted. Would we attend?
But this isn't a law against gays. It's a law against free speech. And jeopardizes the athletes themselves.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
you should totally go support all the injustices that russel your jimmies. do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
And considering that this is a broadly worded anti-free speech law, our citizens are at risk. That makes pretty damn political.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
I somehow doubt the police actually don't care if someone is murdered. They might not record the murder as a "hatecrime", but surely they can't ignore a body? Please note, I have absolutely no clue - it just seems mindblowing if they cover up murders.
They don't have to cover it up as just not really devote resources to it. They just have to not particularly care.
Edit: this isn't at all unusual for cops in any country. Think of it from their point of view. "Why should I care if some [insert slur] gets murdered?"
That line of thought is just so alien to me. My mind has once again been boggled Thanks for explaining to both of you though.
np <33 it's only 80% as fucked up as it sounds maybe, coz some countries actually kill 4 beign gay
Please don't take this personal, but could you please stop using numbers as words and generally type in that weird IM style? Because it really hurts my brain to read your posts just because of that.
On August 08 2013 00:49 DoubleReed wrote: Russia also has an incredibly high death rate, especially men. Life expentancy of men is massively disparate from women. You want to talk about longevity, start there.
Maybe stressing over where people put their penises is killing them.
Life expectency should be irrelevant beyong its influence on the reproduction rate. Everyone dies at some point, the interesting question for sustained population change is how many children they make on average before dying. Sure, if everyone suddenly lives double as long, you get a one-time boost in population, but that is it. Especially considering that people beyond a certain age rarely reproduce at all.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
why should athletes stay out of political debates? i assume you mean more so than the average citizen. i agree that if an athlete causes a fuss there it would be unprofessional. but there are athletes that this law directly oppresses
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
The sports boycott over Apartheid was influential regarding ending it. Athletes have more of a role than most to raise awareness and take a public stand.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
The sports boycott over Apartheid was influential regarding ending it. Athletes have more of a role than most to raise awareness and take a public stand.
There is some debate to be had over whether those boycotts were morally acceptable or not, regardless of the outcome.
I disagree that athletes should generally take a stand on any particular issue. They are rarely informed or qualified, and simply add to the buzzing noise of "pop politics".
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
no, the opposite.
and we shouldnt let the north koreans or the worst arabic states compete either. but 2 wrongs doesnt make make a right.
I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
Gay rights protect humans, ideas don't get protection.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
Not acknowledging gay rights is seeking to lessen the freedom of a certain group of people. Gay rights advocate for maximizing the rights of all people, whereas anti-gay rights seek to minimize the rights of a certain group. They are not equivalent ideas. I understand that this silly "argument" is common for trolling, but its old at this point.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
No, that's dumb. You don't support tolerance and open mindedness but also support intolerance and closed mindedness of other people.
What the hell is this new "Your not open minded at all. You are not in support of other people CHOICE repress gays and remove their ability to protest and speak freely. What kind of progressive are you?"(sneer face)
i wonder how this will transition. majority of russians are anti-gay, so if change was to come, how? someone progressive becoming leader? and if pro-gay/equality does gain momentum, how will it get played out? slowly increasing awareness and convincing the populous or will it meet opposition right away at the first hint? any chance of russian civil war depending on whose in power?
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
No, that's dumb. You don't support tolerance and open mindedness but also support intolerance and closed mindedness of other people.
What the hell is this new "Your not open minded at all. You are not in support of other people CHOICE repress gays and remove their ability to protest and speak freely. What kind of progressive are you?"(sneer face)
At least they are not hiding behind anti-Americanism or anti-Western sentiment as some of my "buddies" like to do. But from what I saw, it seems to be used as a silencing mechanism similar to the "children in Africa," and the "can we move on and stop talking about" statements.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
no, the opposite.
and we shouldnt let the north koreans or the worst arabic states compete either. but 2 wrongs doesnt make make a right.
And some of those Arab states would think America shouldn't be able to compete because they defied international laws to start wars and cost many lives. You don't get to impose your morals on other countries.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
Why do you think Russia is moving backwards regarding this issue. Maybe its USA that took the wrong course?
Just immagine that every single person in USA is gay. You would suggest to let them be? But the country would die in one generation if everybody is gay.
Gayness isn't catching. Sorry about that.
I know it is not catching, it was theoretical question. And by the way you didnt have answer for it, did you?
the fact that those laws won't suddenly change genetics or ensure a lower rate of homosexuals in a state should answer all your questions. laws that are incredibly baseless and against every single detail of science don't make a country look forward-going. Russia is going backwards, sorry :S
OK we are talking about genetics now. From genetics perspective gays are normal people or mistake of nature?
i just said that none of ur basic laws will change that, get over it. it may even be a mutation, who cares. gays are humans and deserve the same rights + and the right to be happy whatsoever. if all people would be born male we would die out, yes. but some moronic law wouldn't help it. people are born gay or straight, there's nothing more to discuss. laws can oppress gays maybe, but it sure won't get them to impregnate females. the birthrate will continue to fall, russia focusses on the wrong problem. i don't understand how people can seriously think that the us took the wrong direction (i'm not from the US be4 u start hating) concerning that issue. start to accept human nature, whether it's "normal" or not.
If you think I hate gays as a whole you are wrong. I support the idea that all humans deservs equal rights. I am not aware that in Russia rights of gay are violated. And this law only forbids propaganda involvement of minors and the youth. There is big difference between tolerance toward gays and propaganda of gay movement.
Really? Beacuse the word "propaganda" is normally used to discribe promoting ideas that people don't like. It is really hard to be tolerant toward gays, but then prohibit their ability to protest or post things in support of their rights.
I can at least understand where they're coming from, particularly for a country with an underpopulation problem.
Could you clarify? I'd rather make sure I understand you correctly before I respond.
Countries that have issues with population tend to favor pro-natal policies. In the past, these have been implemented to have a larger standing army or for larger workforces, etc. Pro-natal policies tend to focus around people having multiple children either from the majority ethnicity in the population in order to maintain the population or from the minority slice of the population pie within the population.
The effects of these pro-natal ideals tend to be serious dislike for things that prevent baby birth. These can include: birth control of any kind, lack of government aid for parental abiltity to afford more children, and homosexuality. He's not saying they are right to be this against homosexuality, what he is saying is that the anti-homosexuality attitude has some kind of a background.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling. and as above, its both anti-gay and anti-speech.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling.
you may say nature but i say society.
yeah i took out "nature" and originally used it since bigotry is abundant throughout human history.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling. and as above, its both anti-gay and anti-speech.
Don't you think it's weird to say how obvious something is while castigating them for calling other people idiots and fools going back in time?
On August 08 2013 05:31 ComaDose wrote: [quote] do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling.
you may say nature but i say society.
yeah i took out "nature" and originally used it since bigotry is abundant throughout human history.
oh cool you even did that before i hit quote and i just didn't notice
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling. and as above, its both anti-gay and anti-speech.
Don't you think it's weird to say how obvious something is while castigating them for calling other people idiots and fools going back in time?
Think about that one for a second. Clearly, it's not obvious.
i dont know how to articulate it
i'm not surprised such law came to be, i dont like it and i oppose it however i dont call russians idiots or bigots because it depends on the perspective. the idea is bigotry but not the people, hard to explain :/
i'm talking in general sense, i'm sure there are westboros of russia but the general people are just acting the way they're "suppose" to behave.
the people are merely acting on what they believe as a society, that doesnt make them idiots or fools however the society is shaped on ideas that is somewhat obsolete to many modern thinkers. however thats just the way it is, so look past the bigotry and try to see common ground (from usa perspective, been there done that so lets try to see what works and what doesnt and try to work it) rather than fighting it head on.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
Moral relativism is rubbish. We don't owe anything to outdated philosophies. Fact is, this is another example of singling out a group and giving them less rights. There has never been a single issue of such a nature that didn't eventually end up being seen as wrong. They are a nation that is taking a lot longer than other modern nations to get with the program.
I don't see why you don't think they should be criticized for it. What is the harm? What is bad about pointing out the outdatedness of their philosophies?
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
Moral relativism is rubbish. We don't owe anything to outdated philosophies. Fact is, this is another example of singling out a group and giving them less rights. There has never been a single issue of such a nature that didn't eventually end up being seen as wrong. They are a nation that is taking a lot longer than other modern nations to get with the program.
I don't see why you don't think they should be criticized for it. What is the harm? What is bad about pointing out the outdatedness of their philosophies?
i guess that depends on how its done. if outdated philosophies need to be weeded out, and if its done aggressively, what kind of outcome would it have? do you think majority of earth population would just say "ohhh i see" or would they fight it? religion is a major force in human civilization yet it is "outdated", how do we change this? is it even possible? i'm just saying people are the way they are and i dont know if new ideas can be forced on people. it takes time and sacrifice and there is no short cut imo.
i agree outdated philosophy rule majority, however we can't force this upgraded philosophy on people, i dont think it'll work...so lets work within this confinement we're in instead of openly saying they're wrong, we're right.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
Moral relativism is rubbish. We don't owe anything to outdated philosophies. Fact is, this is another example of singling out a group and giving them less rights. There has never been a single issue of such a nature that didn't eventually end up being seen as wrong. They are a nation that is taking a lot longer than other modern nations to get with the program.
I don't see why you don't think they should be criticized for it. What is the harm? What is bad about pointing out the outdatedness of their philosophies?
i guess that depends on how its done. if outdated philosophies need to be weeded out, and if its done aggressively, what kind of outcome would it have? do you think majority of earth population would just say "ohhh i see" or would they fight it? religion is a major force in human civilization yet it is "outdated", how do we change this? is it even possible? i'm just saying people are the way they are and i dont know if new ideas can be forced on people. it takes time and sacrifice and there is no short cut imo.
i agree outdated philosophy rule majority, however we can't force this upgraded philosophy on people, i dont think it'll work...so lets work within this confinement we're in instead of openly saying they're wrong, we're right.
People don't need to immediately say "ohhh I see". And it doesn't need to be everyone at once. But consider the extent to which we see religious groups try to spread their messages and influence politics. They are very aggressive. Why should we be any less so? There is not a disadvantage to pushing hard for people to see that discrimination is wrong. There is no disadvantage to offending people, especially when you consider how offensive the ideas being perpetuated by the opposition are. While I understand your point that being aggressive won't immediately make people see the light(lol), there is no disadvantage, and I do think it is helpful.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
Moral relativism is rubbish. We don't owe anything to outdated philosophies. Fact is, this is another example of singling out a group and giving them less rights. There has never been a single issue of such a nature that didn't eventually end up being seen as wrong. They are a nation that is taking a lot longer than other modern nations to get with the program.
I don't see why you don't think they should be criticized for it. What is the harm? What is bad about pointing out the outdatedness of their philosophies?
i guess that depends on how its done. if outdated philosophies need to be weeded out, and if its done aggressively, what kind of outcome would it have? do you think majority of earth population would just say "ohhh i see" or would they fight it? religion is a major force in human civilization yet it is "outdated", how do we change this? is it even possible? i'm just saying people are the way they are and i dont know if new ideas can be forced on people. it takes time and sacrifice and there is no short cut imo.
i agree outdated philosophy rule majority, however we can't force this upgraded philosophy on people, i dont think it'll work...so lets work within this confinement we're in instead of openly saying they're wrong, we're right.
People don't need to immediately say "ohhh I see". And it doesn't need to be everyone at once. But consider the extent to which we see religious groups try to spread their messages and influence politics. They are very aggressive. Why should we be any less so? There is not a disadvantage to pushing hard for people to see that discrimination is wrong. There is no disadvantage to offending people, especially when you consider how offensive the ideas being perpetuated by the opposition are. While I understand your point that being aggressive won't immediately make people see the light(lol), there is no disadvantage, and I do think it is helpful.
i agree, there wont be any progress if such opposing opinion isn't heard however, it should be voiced with consideration.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling. and as above, its both anti-gay and anti-speech.
Don't you think it's weird to say how obvious something is while castigating them for calling other people idiots and fools going back in time?
Think about that one for a second.
Clearly, it's not obvious.
Do you agree that this is anti-gay as well as anti-free speech law?
On August 08 2013 05:31 ComaDose wrote: [quote] do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling. and as above, its both anti-gay and anti-speech.
Don't you think it's weird to say how obvious something is while castigating them for calling other people idiots and fools going back in time?
Think about that one for a second.
Clearly, it's not obvious.
Do you agree that this is anti-gay as well as anti-free speech law?
Yea, but the reason it's such a big deal is that it's anti-free-speech. That people will be jailed just for talking about things. That the measures for what constitutes "propaganda" is hilariously arbitrary.
Countries have anti-gay laws all the damn time. America still has a bunch of anti-gay laws. It's not that crazy for countries to have anti-gay laws. But the law they have? Yea, that's crazy. And it's primarily because it's anti-free-speech.
On August 08 2013 05:39 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
did you just call majority of russians insane?
just saying, people just love to ride their high horse with their higher moral values and shit on anyone that doesnt think "rationally". people are shaped by the environment they live in, fortunately america has seen plenty of blood to learn their lesson, yet you expect others who hasnt gone through "puberty"(certain experience) to understand and if they dont understand, they're bigoted idiots
to russians, this is sane, rational thing to do, protecting what they think is correct. it takes time for them as whole to change their mind supporting equality for all, becoming progressive, however that doesnt mean you get to call them idiots, bigots, fools going back in time. they're just being human.
...????
Because humans can't be idiots, bigots, or fools going back in time? It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
And again, this is an anti-free-speech law. Not an anti-gay law.
no, i was just pointing out humans are idiots, bigots and fools and people are pointing out the obvious like its mind boggling. and as above, its both anti-gay and anti-speech.
Don't you think it's weird to say how obvious something is while castigating them for calling other people idiots and fools going back in time?
Think about that one for a second.
Clearly, it's not obvious.
Do you agree that this is anti-gay as well as anti-free speech law?
Yea, but the reason it's such a big deal is that it's anti-free-speech. That people will be jailed just for talking about things. That the measures for what constitutes "propaganda" is hilariously arbitrary.
Countries have anti-gay laws all the damn time. America still has a bunch of anti-gay laws. It's not that crazy for countries to have anti-gay laws. But the law they have? Yea, that's crazy. And it's primarily because it's anti-free-speech.
I think both anti-gay laws and anti-freespeech laws are crazy.
Both violate what I consider basic human rights.
History won't look kindly on either, IMHO.
That being said, it's not like the current Russian state or previous incarnations were predicated on any sort of humanist ideals.
The Russian-Soviet construct is responsible for one of the most horrific death tolls among non-combatants of any regime in history.
On August 08 2013 05:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: We let the North Koreans, who routinely imprison and murder their own citizens by the tens of thousands play in the Olympics...
but pass a law against the gays, and that's where we put our foot down.
Wasn't the whole point of the Olympics to be a distinctly non-political event?
do you think enforcing a new controversial law on invited athletes is less political than being upset about it?
Every single country enforces their laws on the athletes who come to participate.
are you responding to my question? is your point that we should be fixing the bigger social injustices surrounding the Olympics first? or that we should ignore all problems with the Olympics?
My point is that athletics (and athletes) in general should stay out of Geo-political debates. Russia has some ridiculous laws, and this is one of them. You won't get any argument there out of me. Should we use the Olympics as a tool to solve political disputes or make political statements about Russia's nonsensical policies? No.
Everyone has a right to protest, including athletes. Athletes are people too, and they have rights. Why shouldn't they use the olympics as a tool to voice their concerns? Aside from the fact that they might end up in a Russian jail, who exactly does it hurt? All the people at home who like being entertained? A country's national pride in its medal count? Its the athletes themselves who stand to lose anything. I say if they're willing to put it on the line to express their beliefs in a high-profile way they should have the right. I would be interested in hearing what reasons you have, because so far it just seems to be a personal opinion based on arbitrary preferences.
I agree that people generally shouldn't comment on complex affairs that they know nothing about, but this is a law that is obviously wrong to any sane individual. Athletes are just as capable as anyone else in this regard.
Of course athlete's have the right to protest, and I'm sure some will. I think the hypocrisy of it is unbelievable, as they don't bother protesting much more heinous breaches of human rights and dignity, but it's not surprising that people as uninformed as athlete's usually are will jump on the popular, hot-button issue of the day and ignore the real problems of the world.
Why should they not bother protesting? The same reason any uninformed, public persona should not bother protesting. They are uninformed and their protesting will only add to the buzz of pop-politics. And if they spent their entire lives protesting every wrong in the world they would have no time for their athletics.
"Gay propaganda" means "saying homosexuals are normal people" or "saying homosexuals aren't evil," it's not just a repressive law on speech it's a law intended to make it harder to humanize gays and easier to dehumanize them.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
On August 08 2013 00:01 ETisME wrote: everyone seems to mis-reading this. It's not about population growth or equal right limited freedom etc
Russia letting snowden to stay resident in the country is a public slap to the US, even if Putin said something like don't leak anything about our friend, the US and you can stay. Basically the US needs something as a retribution, this is one of them.
The cleverness of this is actually Russia is NOT rejecting the gays, they are merely saying no to propaganda. This way, even though Russia will be the ugly man here, they aren't gonna get that bad of an image. And the US will be slapping its own face if it takes about Russia is limiting freedom of speech because of Snowden case
Or it could be that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively wrong, regardless of what is going on with Snowden. And institutional homophobia in Russia goes far beyond this, although this law defines anything that indicates homosexuality might be a valid life choice as propaganda which is pretty horrific. It's indefensible, it's immoral, it's certainly not protecting children and it has literally nothing to do with Snowden.
I am not arguing about whether Russia is treating gays fairly or not. I know how good you can write about what Russia is doing is immoral etc but that's not the point. Most of these big announcements aren't just there suddenly and of no reason at all.
Just look at this thread in general. Quite a number of people are already saying Russia isn't doing too bad, they are rejecting the gay's entry, they are against propaganda. Russia is trying to please the US to get over some of the damage the Snowden case has caused. Politics and international relationship are a lot more complicated than a simple event or ideology
the russian police stopped recording hate crimes if f.e. gays are beaten to death. u can kill gays and get away with it. is that what u call "being against propaganda"? it's more than that
Do you have evidences or it is just your perception of Russia?
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
What trials you are talking about? And since you said you think that says that its just your perception that Russia cant do anything right. No matter what they do it is wrong.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
.
First of all Russia didnt act and didnt do anything. It just maintened status quo i.e you can be gay you have all the rights that hetero have but just dont demand more. It is other countries that all of a sudden in last couple of years legalised gay marriages.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
What trials you are talking about? And since you said you think that says that its just your perception that Russia cant do anything right. No matter what they do it is wrong.
russia does things right when russia starts to do things right. abolishing democracy and human rights isnt among the right things to do.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
.
First of all Russia didnt act and didnt do anything. It just maintened status quo i.e you can be gay you have all the rights that hetero have but just dont demand more. It is other countries that all of a sudden in last couple of years legalised gay marriages.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
Do you really think that having rights as long as people don't know something about you counts? Would they have all those rights if they admitted to being gay? The only difference between racism and this is that black people didn't have the luxury of hiding their skin color. "Do whatever you want, but don't tell us about it" is NOT in any way tolerant. It makes a significant % of the population feel bad about their lives because they cannot be who they are openly. And that has nothing to do with "putting your sexuality on the pedestal" or "demanding more rights", it's just wanting to be treated equally as a human being and being allowed to hold hands or kiss in public and have people not flip out or feel disgusted when they hear you're gay.
What laws like this do is keep increasing intolerance and ignorance on the matter, majority of the population STILL think that "homosexuals are sick perverts on the same level with pedophiles or zoophiles and need mental health". I hope you know why this kind of belief is harmful.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition.
How are gays the opposition of Russian Federation? That's a ridiculous statement.
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
hahahahaha
Sir, that is one of the oldest ones in the book no one believes that one anymore.
Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
Since Manning's lawyers and Snowden himself have never been prevented from giving statements to anyone by the United States, no.
All the countries silence opposition.
No, really, despite what you may read on the internet, even here, there really are countries where you can oppose the government peacefully without being beat up or assassinated or put in jail or harassed.
Don't wave your damned pride flags around while you are competing and it will be absolutely no different from any other olympics ever held.
Follow the local laws which is what you should do in ANY country and you'll be just fine.
If a bunch of hippies from some Heroine legal country came to Canada and started injecting needles in their arms and told me it was okay because the olympics are a global event and that's what they do in their country I'd say get the fuck out I don't give a shit what you do at home keep it out of MY backyard.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
The question at hand is not West vs East or what our country is doing, but rather it is largely about international individual rights. Stop rationalizing and just admit that you are disgusted by homosexuality, that at least is more respectable than trying to combine disgust with the modern democratic rights which is completely incompatible.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
Do you really think that having rights as long as people don't know something about you counts? Would they have all those rights if they admitted to being gay? "Do whatever you want, but don't tell us about it" is NOT in any way tolerant. It makes a significant % of the population feel bad about their lives because they cannot be who they are openly. And that has nothing to do with "putting your sexuality on the pedestal", it's just being a normal human being like being allowed to hold hands or kiss in public. What laws like this do is keep increasing intolerance, majority of the population STILL think that "homosexuals are sick perverts on the same level with pedophiles or zoophiles and need mental health". I hope you know why this kind of belief is harmful.
Yes they would have all this rights. Do you honestly think that in Russia police ask every single person if they are gay or not and put gays in black list and does everything to make their life worse?
On August 08 2013 18:04 Figgy wrote: Who the hell cares?
Don't wave your damned pride flags around while you are competing and it will be absolutely no different from any other olympics ever held.
Follow the local laws which is what you should do in ANY country and you'll be just fine.
If a bunch of hippies from some Heroine legal country came to Canada and started injecting needles in their arms and told me it was okay because the olympics are a global event and that's what they do in their country I'd say get the fuck out I don't give a shit what you do at home keep it out of MY backyard.
You know you're making a really shit point when you compare homosexuality to heroin use to try to make your point.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
The question at hand is not West vs East or what our country is doing, but rather it is largely about international individual rights. Stop rationalizing and just admit that you are disgusted by homosexuality, that at least is more respectable than trying to combine disgust with the modern democratic rights which is completely incompatible.
Why should I admit something that I am not? I do not hate gay for being gay. You said international individual rights. What rights do you mean exactly?
Guys I am an adult people I live in Russsia and I know that gay here have all the rights that other people have.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
The question at hand is not West vs East or what our country is doing, but rather it is largely about international individual rights. Stop rationalizing and just admit that you are disgusted by homosexuality, that at least is more respectable than trying to combine disgust with the modern democratic rights which is completely incompatible.
Why should I admit something that I am not? I do not hate gay for being gay. You said international individual rights. What rights do you mean exactly?
Guys I am an adult people I live in Russsia and I know that gay here have all the rights that other people have.
On August 08 2013 17:54 hfglgg wrote: heterosexuals can hold hands in public
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
The question at hand is not West vs East or what our country is doing, but rather it is largely about international individual rights. Stop rationalizing and just admit that you are disgusted by homosexuality, that at least is more respectable than trying to combine disgust with the modern democratic rights which is completely incompatible.
Why should I admit something that I am not? I do not hate gay for being gay. You said international individual rights. What rights do you mean exactly?
Guys I am an adult people I live in Russsia and I know that gay here have all the rights that other people have.
Personally i dont like gays. Gay+Gay+a child is a terrible thing. When I grew up I had a mom and a dad. Dad learned me to stay strong, be man, etc etc, mom also helped to raise me as only woman can.
Not two fking pervert "Dads" or "Parent#1 and Parent#2"
Do what you want at home. But not on the TV, radio, newspapers, or on the street (this "gay demonstrations", etc)
I do not want that my child will see gays and other perverts on the street.
On August 08 2013 18:30 Val_ wrote: Personally i dont like gays. Gay+Gay+a child is a terrible thing. Do what you want at home. But not on the TV, radio, newspapers, or on the street (this "gay demonstrations", etc)
I do not want that my child will see gays and other perverts on the street.
Am I the only natural here? ppl?
no harm will come to your child from being aware of homosexual activity, so you have absolutely no right to dictate when and where homosexual activity should be legally allowed
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
.
First of all Russia didnt act and didnt do anything. It just maintened status quo i.e you can be gay you have all the rights that hetero have but just dont demand more. It is other countries that all of a sudden in last couple of years legalised gay marriages.
heterosexuals can hold hands in public
I have never heard that any gay have been arrested or warranted for holding hands in public. If you heard about such case give a link to that news.
On August 08 2013 18:30 Val_ wrote: Personally i dont like gays. Gay+Gay+a child is a terrible thing. When I grew up I had a mom and a dad. Dad learned me to stay strong, be man, etc etc, mom also helped to raise me as only woman can.
Not two fking pervert "Dads" or "Parent#1 and Parent#2"
Do what you want at home. But not on the TV, radio, newspapers, or on the street (this "gay demonstrations", etc)
I do not want that my child will see gays and other perverts on the street.
Am I the only natural here? ppl?
I heard that in USA and France on official documents words like Mother and Father will no longer be used and instead words like Parent#1 and Parent#2 will be used. Is this true?
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
To be honest, there are quite a few countries that are not gayfriendly where I wouldn't mind living. As a matter of fact, homosexuality is looked down upon in most of the world. It's recently been gaining ground in the West, and being from the West, we view our world view as superior and want to force it upon the rest of the world, which we traditionally regard as backward and inferior.
I find it downright arrogant to think that Europeans or people from the US have any say in the domestic policy of other countries. If Russia wants to enforce an anti-gay law, so be it. It's their decision.
Human Rights is another Western invention that not really a whole lot of countries care about either, even in Europe and the US.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
Do you really think that having rights as long as people don't know something about you counts? Would they have all those rights if they admitted to being gay? "Do whatever you want, but don't tell us about it" is NOT in any way tolerant. It makes a significant % of the population feel bad about their lives because they cannot be who they are openly. And that has nothing to do with "putting your sexuality on the pedestal", it's just being a normal human being like being allowed to hold hands or kiss in public. What laws like this do is keep increasing intolerance, majority of the population STILL think that "homosexuals are sick perverts on the same level with pedophiles or zoophiles and need mental health". I hope you know why this kind of belief is harmful.
Yes they would have all this rights. Do you honestly think that in Russia police ask every single person if they are gay or not and put gays in black list and does everithing to make their life worse?
It has nothing to do with police. You are hiding intolerance by basically saying "Be gay, but don't tell anyone about it and it's all good". This is the issue here. People can be straight, show their affection, be "proud of it" while gays are treated as someone "sick". The point is that majority of population still belive that homosexuality is some kind of disease or "mental disorder". Which is simply factually incorrect. Laws like this don't help the cause.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
To be honest, there are quite a few countries that are not gayfriendly where I wouldn't mind living. As a matter of fact, homosexuality is looked down upon in most of the world. It's recently been gaining ground in the West, and being from the West, we view our world view as superior and want to force it upon the rest of the world, which we traditionally regard as backward and inferior.
I find it downright arrogant to think that Europeans or people from the US have any say in the domestic policy of other countries. If Russia wants to enforce an anti-gay law, so be it. It's their decision.
You appear to have forgotten the context of the thread, for one
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
To be honest, there are quite a few countries that are not gayfriendly where I wouldn't mind living. As a matter of fact, homosexuality is looked down upon in most of the world. It's recently been gaining ground in the West, and being from the West, we view our world view as superior and want to force it upon the rest of the world, which we traditionally regard as backward and inferior.
I find it downright arrogant to think that Europeans or people from the US have any say in the domestic policy of other countries. If Russia wants to enforce an anti-gay law, so be it. It's their decision.
You appear to have forgotten the context of the thread, for one
I just don't see the issue in Russia enforcing its own laws during the olympics. Noone cared about the human rights violations in China (arguably a much bigger issue) during the Beijing Olympics in 2008, but as soon as it's about gay rights, everyone is up in arms.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
To be honest, there are quite a few countries that are not gayfriendly where I wouldn't mind living. As a matter of fact, homosexuality is looked down upon in most of the world. It's recently been gaining ground in the West, and being from the West, we view our world view as superior and want to force it upon the rest of the world, which we traditionally regard as backward and inferior.
I find it downright arrogant to think that Europeans or people from the US have any say in the domestic policy of other countries. If Russia wants to enforce an anti-gay law, so be it. It's their decision.
Human Rights is another Western invention that not really a whole lot of countries care about either, even in Europe and the US.
there are also countries where you need 4 male witnesses to prove the rape of a woman, which essentially means rape is legal, because how often do four good samaritans accidentally walk into a room where a woman is being raped?
are you telling me i shouldn't be morally outraged by that? i should ignore the suffering of rape victims because they're from a different culture? i don't give a fuck what your culture is, if that culture condones oppressing or torturing people, yes, i will be outraged and do what little i can to change it or raise awareness of it.
and before you claim i'm comparing rape to oppressing gay people, it doesn't matter that one is worse than the other, what matters is that you said the reason we can't have opinions on it is because "it's another culture". this is the same reasoning that christian scientists use to torture and slaughter their children by not allowing them medical care, and US courts have struck down their claims of a cultural religious right to do so because it is inhumane to people. oppressing homosexuals is also inhumane.
On August 08 2013 18:58 maartendq wrote: Noone cared about the human rights violations in China (arguably a much bigger issue) during the Beijing Olympics in 2008
this is just blatantly, blatantly false. if you're not straight up lying, you are extremely misinformed
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
To be honest, there are quite a few countries that are not gayfriendly where I wouldn't mind living. As a matter of fact, homosexuality is looked down upon in most of the world. It's recently been gaining ground in the West, and being from the West, we view our world view as superior and want to force it upon the rest of the world, which we traditionally regard as backward and inferior. I find it downright arrogant to think that Europeans or people from the US have any say in the domestic policy of other countries. If Russia wants to enforce an anti-gay law, so be it. It's their decision.
Okay, let me try to make something clear. I dislike ritual animal sacrifices practiced by culture and society largely because I grew up much more secular. The sacrifice of the animal which will be eaten later is not infringing upon democratic rights of other people, it is part of their culture and it should be protected under any healthy liberal democracy. But animal rights groups will disagree but that is for a different thread.
This anti-gay law on the other hand prevents LGBT people from public speaking. Other regions are more specific and state transsexualism and bisexuality as part of anti-gay propaganda and lots of gay rights demonstrations have been broken up by authorities. That is the major problem. Free speech includes allowing people who the public dislike to speak.
And stop with the anti-Americanism, anti-Europeanism, you are making people who have a legitimate reason to have such sentiments look bad.
And what is contex of this tread? Matter is very simple. 1) If you go to other country you have to respect laws of that country. 2) Olimpics movement have no any connection with any social or political movements. It Purpouse is to promote peace and sport. Show that we do something in common, we all like sports.
On August 08 2013 18:04 Figgy wrote: Who the hell cares?
Don't wave your damned pride flags around while you are competing and it will be absolutely no different from any other olympics ever held.
Follow the local laws which is what you should do in ANY country and you'll be just fine.
If a bunch of hippies from some Heroine legal country came to Canada and started injecting needles in their arms and told me it was okay because the olympics are a global event and that's what they do in their country I'd say get the fuck out I don't give a shit what you do at home keep it out of MY backyard.
You know you're making a really shit point when you compare homosexuality to heroin use to try to make your point.
what about Gun laws? If China is hosting an olympics and the US are promoting gun law to be established in China, why can't China say no to these 'propaganda'? People on the net like KwarK can write beautifully sounding reasons to convince this is the basic human right, the right to protect themselves and add sentences to make it sounds more convincing. But it won't change anything because each country has its own pace in adapting something and its own ideology and society. You can't just force things to change when their own locals don't care.
It seems the western countries never really learn to respect the other countries' culture and has to apply their own ways onto things. Compare how China explored the world during the ancient time, we had culture and economy exchange mostly in peace, rarely intervenes foreign politics. That's why China had influence on their culture but not a complete overtake. compare it to the exploring western countries like Spain and Britain, setting up colonies and even forcing up ports to open up trades. The britism museum is THE place to witness how much Britain has taken from other countries and display it as a treasure box lol
Things still are the same with the US intervening in the middle east, for democracy, basic human right etcetc. When the war itself kills civilians, destroyed their economy and culture, even now the situation is unstable. Just think about how that region's political issue they are gonna have for the next hundreds of years.
On August 08 2013 18:04 Figgy wrote: Who the hell cares?
Don't wave your damned pride flags around while you are competing and it will be absolutely no different from any other olympics ever held.
Follow the local laws which is what you should do in ANY country and you'll be just fine.
If a bunch of hippies from some Heroine legal country came to Canada and started injecting needles in their arms and told me it was okay because the olympics are a global event and that's what they do in their country I'd say get the fuck out I don't give a shit what you do at home keep it out of MY backyard.
You know you're making a really shit point when you compare homosexuality to heroin use to try to make your point.
what about Gun laws? If China is hosting an olympics and the US are promoting gun law to be established in China, why can't China say no to these 'propaganda'?
Much like taking heroin, carrying a gun is a choice. Anything else?
On August 08 2013 19:03 ETisME wrote:You can't just force things to change when their own locals don't care.
stop posting this stupid argument. assembling on a forum and speaking out about another country's laws has nothing to do with "forcing" anyone to do anything.
On August 08 2013 18:30 Val_ wrote: Personally i dont like gays. Gay+Gay+a child is a terrible thing. When I grew up I had a mom and a dad. Dad learned me to stay strong, be man, etc etc, mom also helped to raise me as only woman can.
Not two fking pervert "Dads" or "Parent#1 and Parent#2"
Do what you want at home. But not on the TV, radio, newspapers, or on the street (this "gay demonstrations", etc)
I do not want that my child will see gays and other perverts on the street.
Am I the only natural here? ppl?
No, it's not a terrible thing. Look up actual studies about gay parents. There's nothing to suggest they do anything wrong to the kids or mess them up or harm them in any way. Your understanding is simply factually incorrect. The only problem for the kid is the fact that people who think like you exist and would be intolerant in the sight of 2 same sex parents with a kid. There's no other harm.
And if you truly believe in the traditional family. What about single parents? You do know that A LOT of kids grow up with only a single mother or father, right? What happens to those kids? Or the ones who don't have parents at all and grow up in adoption centers?
I do not want that my child will see gays and other perverts on the street.
See, that's the problem. You have a belief that they are perverts or "sick". That's a wrong belief. The reason they go out on the streets is NOT to show that homosexuality should be promoted or encouraged. It's to show that they are same people like you and me and they just want to be treated equally. It is completely stupid to hate people for something they didn't choose or hurts other people.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
i dont think gays get trials in russia.
just deal with it, your country is going backwards and in the future your generation will be laughed at because you act so stupid.
edit: gays arent even "the opposition" and a country that silence them is generally considered a big douchbag country no one wants to live in. nice understanding of democracy mate.
To be honest, there are quite a few countries that are not gayfriendly where I wouldn't mind living. As a matter of fact, homosexuality is looked down upon in most of the world. It's recently been gaining ground in the West, and being from the West, we view our world view as superior and want to force it upon the rest of the world, which we traditionally regard as backward and inferior.
I find it downright arrogant to think that Europeans or people from the US have any say in the domestic policy of other countries. If Russia wants to enforce an anti-gay law, so be it. It's their decision.
Human Rights is another Western invention that not really a whole lot of countries care about either, even in Europe and the US.
there are also countries where you need 4 male witnesses to prove the rape of a woman, which essentially means rape is legal, because how often do four good samaritans accidentally walk into a room where a woman is being raped?
are you telling me i shouldn't be morally outraged by that? i should ignore the suffering of rape victims because they're from a different culture? i don't give a fuck what your culture is, if that culture condones oppressing or torturing people, yes, i will be outraged and do what little i can to change it or raise awareness of it.
and before you claim i'm comparing rape to oppressing gay people, it doesn't matter that one is worse than the other, what matters is that you said the reason we can't have opinions on it is because "it's another culture". this is the same reasoning that christian scientists use to torture and slaughter their children by not allowing them medical care, and US courts have struck down their claims of a cultural religious right to do so because it is inhumane to people. oppressing homosexuals is also inhumane.
On August 08 2013 18:58 maartendq wrote: Noone cared about the human rights violations in China (arguably a much bigger issue) during the Beijing Olympics in 2008
this is just blatantly, blatantly false. if you're not straight up lying, you are extremely misinformed
There's a huge difference between four male witnesses having to be present to testify a rape and gay rights. In many cultures, marriage is a sacred union of a man and a woman. In those cultures, there is also a form of invisible social pressure for a girl or a boy to find a suitable mate, and to marry that person. Your family's honour can depend on it, as does your own future. You can be gay all you like, but going public with it is literally not an option.
Is this wrong? No. It's just different. I've had the pleasure to live with a Muslim family in Malaysia for a month and I learned a lot. For them, the mere idea that people of the same sex could get married crosses a line human being should not cross. The mere idea of homosexuality makes them incredibly uncomfortable. You don't need to travel far to see people opposing things like gay marriage though. Most somewhat conservative people (religious or not) in Europe and the rest of the developed world will probably feel uncomfortable as well.
Come to think of it. My sister went to the World Youth Days in Rio De Janeiro last month, with her girlfriend (she's gay). Both knew, however, that Brazil, being a conservative catholic country, wasn't a place where they should be walking hand in hand, let alone kiss each other in public. So instead of thinking "we can do all that in Belgium so we can do that everywhere else in the world; fuck other people's sensitivities" they just played nicely and pretended to just be good friends, in public at least.
People being uncomfortable with gay rights does not mean those people are wrong. You think these people are wrong because in your country you do things differently. Likewise, these people will think that you are wrong because they do things differently. It's not about who's right or who's wrong. Cultures differ. This doesn't mean that one can't be outraged by some practices since some of them are unacceptable by any standard (your example of the four witnesses is a very good example of that) but it does mean that people need to have a more nuanced look on the world.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
Do you really think that having rights as long as people don't know something about you counts? Would they have all those rights if they admitted to being gay? "Do whatever you want, but don't tell us about it" is NOT in any way tolerant. It makes a significant % of the population feel bad about their lives because they cannot be who they are openly. And that has nothing to do with "putting your sexuality on the pedestal", it's just being a normal human being like being allowed to hold hands or kiss in public. What laws like this do is keep increasing intolerance, majority of the population STILL think that "homosexuals are sick perverts on the same level with pedophiles or zoophiles and need mental health". I hope you know why this kind of belief is harmful.
Yes they would have all this rights. Do you honestly think that in Russia police ask every single person if they are gay or not and put gays in black list and does everithing to make their life worse?
It has nothing to do with police. You are hiding intolerance by basically saying "Be gay, but don't tell anyone about it and it's all good". This is the issue here. People can be straight, show their affection, be "proud of it" while gays are treated as someone "sick". The point is that majority of population still belive that homosexuality is some kind of disease or "mental disorder". Which is simply factually incorrect. Laws like this don't help the cause.
Do you live in Russia?How do you know then? We dont belive that homosexuality is some kind of disease or "mental disorder". Not at all. We dont much care what they do at home in bed. Its their business. We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
edit: you know what, i'm getting too angry and what i wrote originally in this post is a bad idea. maarten, you are making wrong assumptions about me and not listening to my arguments and i'm not going to discuss this with you anymore.
Personally I'm pretty happy calling any country/culture that advocates baseless inequality for race/sex/sexuality/whatever 'wrong'. I'm sure this is my western, white privilege and all, but I'm ok with that. It seems fundamental enough to me that I'm willing to hold it as right and criticise those who don't believe it.
On August 08 2013 19:33 marvellosity wrote: Personally I'm pretty happy calling any country/culture that advocates baseless inequality for race/sex/sexuality/whatever 'wrong'. I'm sure this is my western, white privilege and all, but I'm ok with that. It seems fundamental enough to me that I'm willing to hold it as right and criticise those who don't believe it.
these arguments always end up here - there's a shortage of logic in the homophobia apologists' rhetoric, so they have to resort to the strawman of saying "westerners are forcing/imposing their will on other cultures" and trying to make it about privilege or imperialism. yawn. organizing and speaking out about something we think is wrong does not oppress or force anything on any other culture. we're all grown ups and we all live on the same planet. you don't get to skirt moral issues by whining and ranting about someone from another culture criticizing the customs of yours. criticism is a right.
On August 08 2013 19:33 marvellosity wrote: Personally I'm pretty happy calling any country/culture that advocates baseless inequality for race/sex/sexuality/whatever 'wrong'. I'm sure this is my western, white privilege and all, but I'm ok with that. It seems fundamental enough to me that I'm willing to hold it as right and criticise those who don't believe it.
these arguments always end up here - there's a shortage of logic in the homophobia apologists' rhetoric, so they have to resort to the strawman of saying "westerners are forcing/imposing their will on other cultures" and trying to make it about privilege or imperialism. yawn. organizing and speaking out about something we think is wrong does not oppress or force anything on any other culture. we're all grown ups and we all live on the same planet. you don't get to skirt moral issues by whining and ranting about someone from another culture criticizing the customs of yours. criticism is a right.
Right. It's nice having rationality on your side, isn't it? ^_^
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
and Russia isn't doing that. did you even read the article?
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
Do you really think that having rights as long as people don't know something about you counts? Would they have all those rights if they admitted to being gay? "Do whatever you want, but don't tell us about it" is NOT in any way tolerant. It makes a significant % of the population feel bad about their lives because they cannot be who they are openly. And that has nothing to do with "putting your sexuality on the pedestal", it's just being a normal human being like being allowed to hold hands or kiss in public. What laws like this do is keep increasing intolerance, majority of the population STILL think that "homosexuals are sick perverts on the same level with pedophiles or zoophiles and need mental health". I hope you know why this kind of belief is harmful.
Yes they would have all this rights. Do you honestly think that in Russia police ask every single person if they are gay or not and put gays in black list and does everithing to make their life worse?
It has nothing to do with police. You are hiding intolerance by basically saying "Be gay, but don't tell anyone about it and it's all good". This is the issue here. People can be straight, show their affection, be "proud of it" while gays are treated as someone "sick". The point is that majority of population still belive that homosexuality is some kind of disease or "mental disorder". Which is simply factually incorrect. Laws like this don't help the cause.
Do you live in Russia?How do you know then? We dont belive that homosexuality is some kind of disease or "mental disorder". Not at all. We dont much care what they do at home in bed. Its their business. We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
I live in a post soviet country where people have very similar attitudes. See, the thing is that it's not just "what people do in bedroom". Sexuality is something everyone should be comfortable with.
Again, the great example, which you didn't address is holding hands or kissing in public. Why can straight couples do that with no problem, while gays wouldn't be able to without discrimination? You can pretend it's not the case, but you very well know how it works. Most people feel "disgusted" if they saw something like that. That's the problem. Laws like this prevent people from being who they are.
And if you define normal like that. What about people who are born without legs or arms? They are even less common than 1%. Can they show themselves in public and why aren't there laws to prevent that?
The whole thing comes down to a belief that kids seeing gays will somehow make them more likely to be gay or that homosexuality is a perversion. Both of which are ridiculous to any rational human being.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
?????
What the hell are you talking about? This is a law that bans open support for gay rights. It's an anti-free-speech law. And you're saying it's intolerant to reject that????? I have to be tolerant of people silencing me???? What the hell kind of warped language are you using?
You shouldn't be able to use words with the way you treat them.
What the hell are you talking about? Gays in Russia have as many rights as other people. They have right to work, study, have medical care and other various rights.
And about the issue of silencing. All the countries silence opposition. Didnt USA silence Maning and Snowden?
This law doesn’t prevent gays from demanding their rights, it prevents them from demanding privileges.
Do you really think that having rights as long as people don't know something about you counts? Would they have all those rights if they admitted to being gay? "Do whatever you want, but don't tell us about it" is NOT in any way tolerant. It makes a significant % of the population feel bad about their lives because they cannot be who they are openly. And that has nothing to do with "putting your sexuality on the pedestal", it's just being a normal human being like being allowed to hold hands or kiss in public. What laws like this do is keep increasing intolerance, majority of the population STILL think that "homosexuals are sick perverts on the same level with pedophiles or zoophiles and need mental health". I hope you know why this kind of belief is harmful.
Yes they would have all this rights. Do you honestly think that in Russia police ask every single person if they are gay or not and put gays in black list and does everithing to make their life worse?
It has nothing to do with police. You are hiding intolerance by basically saying "Be gay, but don't tell anyone about it and it's all good". This is the issue here. People can be straight, show their affection, be "proud of it" while gays are treated as someone "sick". The point is that majority of population still belive that homosexuality is some kind of disease or "mental disorder". Which is simply factually incorrect. Laws like this don't help the cause.
Do you live in Russia?How do you know then? We dont belive that homosexuality is some kind of disease or "mental disorder". Not at all. We dont much care what they do at home in bed. Its their business. We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
I live in a post soviet country where people have very similar attitudes. See, the thing is that it's not just "what people do in bedroom". Sexuality is something everyone should be comfortable with.
Again, the great example, which you didn't address is holding hands or kissing in public. Why can straight couples do that with no problem, while gays wouldn't be able to without discrimination? You can pretend it's not the case, but you very well know how it works. Most people feel "disgusted" if they saw something like that. That's the problem. Laws like this prevent people from being who they are.
And if you define normal like that. What about people who are born without legs or arms? They are even less common than 1%. Can they show themselves in public and why aren't there laws to prevent that?
The whole thing comes down to a belief that kids seeing gays will somehow make them more likely to be gay or that homosexuality is a perversion. Both of which are ridiculous to any rational human being.
Am I missing something? Where it is written that this law forbids gay to kiss or to hold each over hand in public?
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Only the suppression of their right to free speech, which is the same thing as oppressing them.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Yeah, Russia only sends people who speak about gay rights to gulags, no persecution whatsoever!
On August 08 2013 21:54 MrSourGit wrote: I wish every country would stop trying to run others , so sick of it.
Different countries , different rules. Right or wrong in each others eyes , it is what it is.
So just to be clear, you think a country should be allowed to do whatever it wants within its own borders, and no other country has a say in it. I'm not sure if you realize the sorts of behavior that you're potentially justifying here, but it's safe to say that no reasonable person would agree.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
Yeah, is the terrible argument of "Oh look how open minded you are! You don't respect my CHOICE to abuse and oppress people. What a hyprocrite!"
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Well there is this sweet list of animals that display homosexual behaviour.
There are a bunch of medical jounrals about it too. At the end of the day, you can't say it doesn't exist in nature, because it does and is pretty common.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Do you have evidence homosexuality is UNnatural? Homosexuality is present in dozens, if not hundreds, of animal species. Or are dolphins being brainwashed by the liberal elite dolphins into being gay?
A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
On August 08 2013 22:04 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Russia is a separate country with its own sets of beliefs, customs, and laws. Let them be.
Why would we do that when they are repressing people? We can object as we see fit. They don't get a pass because they are another country.
Look within your country: NSA, privacy, civil liberties, false flags, vicsims, economic embargo, military control of other countries. Why don't you complain about that first instead!
On August 08 2013 22:04 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Russia is a separate country with its own sets of beliefs, customs, and laws. Let them be.
Why would we do that when they are repressing people? We can object as we see fit. They don't get a pass because they are another country.
Look within your country: NSA, privacy, civil liberties, false flags, vicsims, economic embargo, military control of other countries. Why don't you complain about that first instead!
Terrible argument. Just because there exist flaws in one's own country, doesn't mean we can't criticise another country. Again, this makes no logical sense.
On August 08 2013 22:04 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Russia is a separate country with its own sets of beliefs, customs, and laws. Let them be.
Why would we do that when they are repressing people? We can object as we see fit. They don't get a pass because they are another country.
Look within your country: NSA, privacy, civil liberties, false flags, vicsims, economic embargo, military control of other countries. Why don't you complain about that first instead!
How about I just complain about all of it as I see fit? How does that sound? Just because my country has a few problems doesn't give Russia a pass.
On August 08 2013 22:04 Rassy wrote: So just to be clear, you think a country should be allowed to do whatever it wants within its own borders, and no other country has a say in it.
Yes off course, specially when the country has a democratic elected government.
I don't mean to Godwin the thread, but dude.... the criteria you just stated justifies the holocaust. Period. There's no way around it. No reasonable person would agree that every country has a right to commit genocide. Yet you just said, "yes, of course" to "a country should be allowed to do whatever it wants within its own borders"
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Well there is this sweet list of animals that display homosexual behaviour.
There are a bunch of medical jounrals about it too. At the end of the day, you can't say it doesn't exist in nature, because it does and is pretty common.
Homicide pedophilia incest and other things like that exist in nature and so that?
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Homosexuality is all over the natural world, and plenty within primates.
But I wasn't saying it was natural, actually. I was mocking you. Saying something is "unnatural" has been used by bigots for millenia to justify everything from banning interracial marriage to apologizing for marital rape to prohibiting wearing different kinds of fabric. It's a nonsense phrase to say something is unnatural. Humans are from nature, and everything we create we create from nature. It's a fake delineation. What you really mean is "gay is icky."
I don't know why people want to simplify something as awesomely complex as human sexuality.
I am not that polite to people who butcher words like tolerance to hold on to bigotry.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Well there is this sweet list of animals that display homosexual behaviour.
There are a bunch of medical jounrals about it too. At the end of the day, you can't say it doesn't exist in nature, because it does and is pretty common.
Homicide pedophilia incest and other things like that exist in nature and so that?
You can't keep your argument straight. "It's not natural!" ----> "oh, it is! Well, look at these bad things that are natural too!"
Your 2nd point was not your first, you asked for evidence that homosexuality is natural and you were given it.
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
The real problem with the next Olympics will be the US blackmailing everyone with the information they stole into giving them all the gold medals. They just put out petty stories like this so people can go around in circles for as long as possible to put off talking about real problems and major breaches of international law... hence why you see most Americans jump onto the 'Russia is automatically evil' train, just goes to show you how horrible the cold war really was.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Well there is this sweet list of animals that display homosexual behaviour.
There are a bunch of medical jounrals about it too. At the end of the day, you can't say it doesn't exist in nature, because it does and is pretty common.
Homicide pedophilia incest and other things like that exist in nature and so that?
User was temp banned for this post.
Well that resolved itself exactly as I thought it would. The argument is both flawed and sad.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Well there is this sweet list of animals that display homosexual behaviour.
There are a bunch of medical jounrals about it too. At the end of the day, you can't say it doesn't exist in nature, because it does and is pretty common.
Homicide pedophilia incest and other things like that exist in nature and so that?
User was temp banned for this post.
Well that resolved itself exactly as I thought it would. The argument is both flawed and sad.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
Well, ignorance is bliss they say.
The argument isn't even consistent.
1) homosexuality is unnatural! show me how it's natural!
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
I have been searching long and far for the dumbest argument. My long search is over.
What will I do now? Will I find more meaning to my life? My search may be over, but my life has only just begun.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
I think that there are at least a few hundred people born via artificial insemination
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
What if I told you.... that gay people can reproduce, too?
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Well there is this sweet list of animals that display homosexual behaviour.
There are a bunch of medical jounrals about it too. At the end of the day, you can't say it doesn't exist in nature, because it does and is pretty common.
Homicide pedophilia incest and other things like that exist in nature and so that?
User was temp banned for this post.
Well that resolved itself exactly as I thought it would. The argument is both flawed and sad.
On August 08 2013 22:23 MikeMM wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:14 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:09 MikeMM wrote:
On August 08 2013 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 08 2013 20:03 MikeMM wrote:
On August 08 2013 19:45 n0ise wrote:
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
Well, ignorance is bliss they say.
The argument isn't even consistent.
1) homosexuality is unnatural! show me how it's natural!
---> is shown it's natural
2) but all these stupid things are natural too!
---> right
3) but homosexuality is unnatural!
---> what?
Come on, do you expect rational arguments from people like this. Its all about hate, hate, hate, deny, deny, deny. And then when that fails "Its the liberal media and their gay-activist propaganda!!!!"
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
Well there is this sweet list of animals that display homosexual behaviour.
There are a bunch of medical jounrals about it too. At the end of the day, you can't say it doesn't exist in nature, because it does and is pretty common.
Homicide pedophilia incest and other things like that exist in nature and so that?
User was temp banned for this post.
Well that resolved itself exactly as I thought it would. The argument is both flawed and sad.
On August 08 2013 22:23 MikeMM wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:14 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:09 MikeMM wrote:
On August 08 2013 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 08 2013 20:03 MikeMM wrote:
On August 08 2013 19:45 n0ise wrote:
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
Well, ignorance is bliss they say.
The argument isn't even consistent.
1) homosexuality is unnatural! show me how it's natural!
---> is shown it's natural
2) but all these stupid things are natural too!
---> right
3) but homosexuality is unnatural!
---> what?
Come on, do you expect rational arguments from people like this. Its all about hate, hate, hate, deny, deny, deny. And then when that fails "Its the liberal media and their gay-activist propaganda!!!!"
Nah, nowadays it's "You're being intolerant of my bigotry! Why can't I impose my beliefs on others? My rights! My riiiiights!!"
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Many Americans have a huge problem with all these things. Unfortunately, our government doesn't really listen to us all that much. You're making the mistake of conflating people in America with our government, when the records show that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of their Congress.
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Do you think if I spent some time looking up information about Brazil, do you think could prove that you couldn't complain about 'HYPROCRISY" in other countries when you have it in your own?
Once again, just because other nations have problems does not give Russia a pass.
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
??? There's plenty of rage? You do know that the Iraq war is massively unpopular right? I think the drone strikes have been plummeting in popularity the more people learn about them. And public support is generally on Snowdens side just because people don't like surveillance. Congress has had a single digit approval rating for a while.
Americans are incredibly critical of their government. We have been throughout history. It's practically our pastime.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
What if I told you.... that gay people can reproduce, too?
What if I told you... responding to stupid with stupid is still stupid?
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
As you appear to have no grasp of how the world works or how to read properly, I guess I'll leave talking to you to others.
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
??? There's plenty of rage? You do know that the Iraq war is massively unpopular right? I think the drone strikes have been plummeting in popularity the more people learn about them. And public support is generally on Snowdens side just because people don't like surveillance. Congress has had a single digit approval rating for a while.
Americans are incredibly critical of their government. We have been throughout history. It's practically our pastime.
The height of ignorance. I can't believe my eyes ready something either totally naive or totally stupid. Throughout history? Let me remind you that barely ten years ago your government with your poeple's complicit supports attacked Iraq under the justification of WMD? And public support on Snowden and single digit approval rating? Lol what ridiculous if not unintentionally hilarious thing to read so early in the morning. Keep your public opinion and statistics to yourself. The point of being critical and complaining is action. So far, you are all talk (not even) and no action.
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
You do know that was a secret government program that even most congressmen didn't know about, right?
On August 08 2013 22:42 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
As you appear to have no grasp of how the world works or how to read properly, I guess I'll leave talking to you to others.
edit: see Snowden.
lol another idiotic response and ad hom. See Snowden hide you mean? If there is such massive support towards him, why is he hiding? Why cant the people protect him from the government they think is wrong on this issue? ANSWER THIS OR SHUT UP!
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
??? There's plenty of rage? You do know that the Iraq war is massively unpopular right? I think the drone strikes have been plummeting in popularity the more people learn about them. And public support is generally on Snowdens side just because people don't like surveillance. Congress has had a single digit approval rating for a while.
Americans are incredibly critical of their government. We have been throughout history. It's practically our pastime.
The height of ignorance. I can't believe my eyes ready something either totally naive or totally stupid. Throughout history? Let me remind you that barely ten years ago your government with your poeple's complicit supports attacked Iraq under the justification of WMD? And public support on Snowden and single digit approval rating? Lol what ridiculous if not unintentionally hilarious thing to read so early in the morning. Keep your public opinion and statistics to yourself. The point of being critical and complaining is action. So far, you are all talk (not even) and no action.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
And many western countries have it the other way round. Say "homosexuality is sinful" and you'll get arrested (recently an American pastor got arrested in England for doing just that, I believe). Say that the number of Holocaust victims might need revision and you might have to serve some jail time.
Neither party cares about freedom of speech or equality. The same applies to most influential feminists nowadays, who couldn't care less about men getting the short end of the stick (false rape accusations, child custody, etc.).
On August 08 2013 22:42 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
You do know that was a secret government program that even most congressmen didn't know about, right?
Om Jesus are you seriously this retarded? We are talking about it NOW. NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS OUT. Why are there still no complaints or massive action (which you think is happening in your naive little mind) NOW?
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
??? There's plenty of rage? You do know that the Iraq war is massively unpopular right? I think the drone strikes have been plummeting in popularity the more people learn about them. And public support is generally on Snowdens side just because people don't like surveillance. Congress has had a single digit approval rating for a while.
Americans are incredibly critical of their government. We have been throughout history. It's practically our pastime.
The height of ignorance. I can't believe my eyes ready something either totally naive or totally stupid. Throughout history? Let me remind you that barely ten years ago your government with your poeple's complicit supports attacked Iraq under the justification of WMD? And public support on Snowden and single digit approval rating? Lol what ridiculous if not unintentionally hilarious thing to read so early in the morning. Keep your public opinion and statistics to yourself. The point of being critical and complaining is action. So far, you are all talk (not even) and no action.
Yea, public support of Iraq changed pretty rapidly. Not sure where you've been the last ten years.
Oh, so sorry to trouble you with things like statistics, facts, and math. Continue to live in your fairy tale land.
And might I remind you that because this is the Internet you have no goddamn clue what I have or have not done as far as action.
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
Our country is flawed, it is true. But we still can object to what Russia is doing.
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Well it is kinda rare on this forums i have to admit,americans can be verry patriotic and dont like to attack their own country on serious isues of their forgeign politics ,its mostly republicans against democrats discussions about internal economic affairs wich pop up here. Even the nasa spying thread had manny americans in it wich said they where fine with it and that it wasnt such a big isue since "all countrys do it all the time" All mike wanted to say i think is that things beeing more or less common in nature is not a good moral guideline for humanity thereby also somewhat refuting his own argument in an earlier post. He formulated it in a bad way though. From an evolutionary and reproduction point of vieuw beeing gay is not "natural",I dont see how it can be. It does not contribute to mixing genes nor does it lead to reproduction (even for ivf you do need a cell from the other gender), its a sort of luxery. But sex isnt only for reproduction, its also for pleasure and i dont realy see what is wrong with that. Strait couples also have sex without the aim to reproduce.
The neonazi argument from the mod i find equally offensive btw, it is formulated in a bad way and somewhat sugesting that everyone who is "against" beeing gay is also a neonazi.
On August 08 2013 22:42 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
As you appear to have no grasp of how the world works or how to read properly, I guess I'll leave talking to you to others.
edit: see Snowden.
lol another idiotic response and ad hom. See Snowden hide you mean? If there is such massive support towards him, why is he hiding? Why cant the people protect him from the government they think is wrong on this issue? ANSWER THIS OR SHUT UP! marvellosity ANSWER THIS
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
And many western countries have it the other way round. Say "homosexuality is sinful" and you'll get arrested (recently an American pastor got arrested in England for doing just that, I believe). Say that the number of Holocaust victims might need revision and you might have to serve some jail time.
Neither party cares about freedom of speech or equality. The same applies to most influential feminists nowadays, who couldn't care less about men getting the short end of the stick (false rape accusations, child custody, etc.).
Source please or stop the equivocation. And yes people do care about free speech. Look up the ACLU.
On August 08 2013 22:42 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
You do know that was a secret government program that even most congressmen didn't know about, right?
Om Jesus are you seriously this retarded? We are talking about it NOW. NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS OUT. Why are there still no complaints or massive action (which you think is happening in your naive little mind) NOW?
User was warned for this post
What exactly do you want to see from us? Because maybe you should look up if we're doing those things, first.
On August 08 2013 22:42 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
You do know that was a secret government program that even most congressmen didn't know about, right?
Om Jesus are you seriously this retarded? We are talking about it NOW. NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS OUT. Why are there still no complaints or massive action (which you think is happening in your naive little mind) NOW?
User was warned for this post
There is action. Our congress is reviewing it and making is more transparent. They are working on better oversite and we know more about the program every day. And they have also proven that it is effective at warning of terrorist attacks, hence the shut down of US embassys this week.
Source? Mainstream media (print, tv, etc) coverage or actual unequivocal critical position against NSA, legitimate website and not some obscure fan page in facebook or what not, or any legitimate source at all that Americans are really up in arms about the NSA and all the abuses by the US government.
On August 08 2013 22:50 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:46 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:42 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
You do know that was a secret government program that even most congressmen didn't know about, right?
Om Jesus are you seriously this retarded? We are talking about it NOW. NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS OUT. Why are there still no complaints or massive action (which you think is happening in your naive little mind) NOW?
User was warned for this post
There is action. Our congress is reviewing it and making is more transparent. They are working on better oversite and we know more about the program every day. And they have also proven that it is effective at warning of terrorist attacks, hence the shut down of US embassys this week.
Nope on the last part. It's helped against terrorists in at most one case.
On August 08 2013 23:01 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Source? Mainstream media (print, tv, etc) coverage or actual unequivocal critical position against NSA, legitimate website and not some obscure fan page in facebook or what not, or any legitimate source at all that Americans are really up in arms about the NSA and all the abuses by the US government.
I'm still pretty curious how the NSA's problems make Russia's problems any better.
On August 08 2013 23:01 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Source? Mainstream media (print, tv, etc) coverage or actual unequivocal critical position against NSA, legitimate website and not some obscure fan page in facebook or what not, or any legitimate source at all that Americans are really up in arms about the NSA and all the abuses by the US government.
Go to CNN and look it up yourself. Just type in NSA and you will see the numerious hearings we have had on the subject and every news agency and tech company reporting on it. Google will handle that for you no problem.
On August 08 2013 22:00 shinosai wrote: So just to be clear, you think a country should be allowed to do whatever it wants within its own borders, and no other country has a say in it.
My ignorant opinion on this subject can be expressed by answering to this - as long as the majority of that country is for it - Yes. I do think any country can do, whatever, inside their borders.
On August 08 2013 23:01 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Source? Mainstream media (print, tv, etc) coverage or actual unequivocal critical position against NSA, legitimate website and not some obscure fan page in facebook or what not, or any legitimate source at all that Americans are really up in arms about the NSA and all the abuses by the US government.
That took about 2 minutes of my time, just clicking on some stuff at the top of reddit. Most of these links are to major sources of media, and not just some random fan page.
On August 08 2013 22:50 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:46 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:42 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
You do know that was a secret government program that even most congressmen didn't know about, right?
Om Jesus are you seriously this retarded? We are talking about it NOW. NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS OUT. Why are there still no complaints or massive action (which you think is happening in your naive little mind) NOW?
User was warned for this post
There is action. Our congress is reviewing it and making is more transparent. They are working on better oversite and we know more about the program every day. And they have also proven that it is effective at warning of terrorist attacks, hence the shut down of US embassys this week.
Nope on the last part. It's helped against terrorists in at most one case.
Well, to be fair to the NSA, we never really know how many attacks other things the CIA prevented over the years either. They don't really publish that stuff. There is oversight and a lot of senators that I trust seem to be ok with the program, so I'm willing to take their word that it is helping.
On August 08 2013 22:00 shinosai wrote: So just to be clear, you think a country should be allowed to do whatever it wants within its own borders, and no other country has a say in it.
My ignorant opinion on this subject can be expressed by answering to this - as long as the majority of that country is for it - Yes. I do think any country can do, whatever, inside their borders.
Including the Holocaust? I mean, as long as its within their own borders.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
And many western countries have it the other way round. Say "homosexuality is sinful" and you'll get arrested (recently an American pastor got arrested in England for doing just that, I believe). Say that the number of Holocaust victims might need revision and you might have to serve some jail time.
Neither party cares about freedom of speech or equality. The same applies to most influential feminists nowadays, who couldn't care less about men getting the short end of the stick (false rape accusations, child custody, etc.).
Source please or stop the equivocation. And yes people do care about free speech. Look up the ACLU.
Then you have countries that want to outlaw the words like "father" and "mother" and replace them with "parent A" and "parent B" or such (I believe France wants to introduce such a law). Or countries that want to outlaw gender-specific toilets or force men to urinate while sitting (was that Sweden?).
All in all, both sides just want to legally enforce their respective agendas.
On August 08 2013 22:00 shinosai wrote: So just to be clear, you think a country should be allowed to do whatever it wants within its own borders, and no other country has a say in it.
My ignorant opinion on this subject can be expressed by answering to this - as long as the majority of that country is for it - Yes. I do think any country can do, whatever, inside their borders.
You may want to put some limits on that opinion and say that your not ok with them murdering a whole group of people beause the public demands it.
On August 08 2013 22:00 shinosai wrote: So just to be clear, you think a country should be allowed to do whatever it wants within its own borders, and no other country has a say in it.
My ignorant opinion on this subject can be expressed by answering to this - as long as the majority of that country is for it - Yes. I do think any country can do, whatever, inside their borders.
You may want to put some limits on that opinion and say that your not ok with them murdering a whole group of people beause the public demands it.
His whole view is silly; a true democracy is one with proper checks and balances in place to ensure "tyranny of the majority" does not occur. 55 people voting to kill the other 45 people is not a proper political democracy except under the very simplified definition of "people voted for it"
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
And many western countries have it the other way round. Say "homosexuality is sinful" and you'll get arrested (recently an American pastor got arrested in England for doing just that, I believe). Say that the number of Holocaust victims might need revision and you might have to serve some jail time.
Neither party cares about freedom of speech or equality. The same applies to most influential feminists nowadays, who couldn't care less about men getting the short end of the stick (false rape accusations, child custody, etc.).
Source please or stop the equivocation. And yes people do care about free speech. Look up the ACLU.
Then you have countries that want to outlaw the words like "father" and "mother" and replace them with "parent A" and "parent B" or such (I believe France wants to introduce such a law). Or countries that want to outlaw gender-specific toilets or force men to urinate while sitting (was that Sweden?).
All in all, both sides just want to legally enforce their respective agendas.
Yes and those countries outlaw hate speach because they have issues with peopel attempting to start riots or there is a risk the speaker would be harmed. Even the US stops rallies if there is a large thread of violence.
And I would be ok with Russia limiting free speech if they had good reason to beleive that it could cause a riot at the Olympics or lead to a lot of people getting hurt. People have a right to be safe. But that is not the reasoning they are providing.
On August 08 2013 23:01 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Source? Mainstream media (print, tv, etc) coverage or actual unequivocal critical position against NSA, legitimate website and not some obscure fan page in facebook or what not, or any legitimate source at all that Americans are really up in arms about the NSA and all the abuses by the US government.
I'm still pretty curious how the NSA's problems make Russia's problems any better.
I really want to swat you like a fly with your love for logical fallacy and lazy thinking, but I'll play nice. NO ONE is saying that because of NSA, we could forget about Russia. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for some people, especially Americans, to really be so riled up on Russia's human rights violation while they seem pretty fine with the violations of their own government. Hypocrisy, that's all. So unless anyone can provide me a legitimate source that indeed America is all up in arms about violations by its own government, I think I rest my case,
On August 08 2013 23:01 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Source? Mainstream media (print, tv, etc) coverage or actual unequivocal critical position against NSA, legitimate website and not some obscure fan page in facebook or what not, or any legitimate source at all that Americans are really up in arms about the NSA and all the abuses by the US government.
Go to CNN and look it up yourself. Just type in NSA and you will see the numerious hearings we have had on the subject and every news agency and tech company reporting on it. Google will handle that for you no problem.
You know what's funny? I can quote this verbatim and give the same advice to you and see as many if not more evidence that there is none of this "Americans up in arms against NSA/US human rights violation" you are talking about. So again, please show me the evidence.
On August 08 2013 22:50 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:46 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:42 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:33 marvellosity wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:32 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:22 Jibba wrote:
On August 08 2013 22:08 marvellosity wrote: Yeah, I don't get the "you can only complain about oppression in your own country" point of view. Doesn't come close to even making sense.
It's because those people are morons. They're unintelligent bottomfeeders.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
You do know that was a secret government program that even most congressmen didn't know about, right?
Om Jesus are you seriously this retarded? We are talking about it NOW. NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS OUT. Why are there still no complaints or massive action (which you think is happening in your naive little mind) NOW?
User was warned for this post
There is action. Our congress is reviewing it and making is more transparent. They are working on better oversite and we know more about the program every day. And they have also proven that it is effective at warning of terrorist attacks, hence the shut down of US embassys this week.
Nope on the last part. It's helped against terrorists in at most one case.
Well, to be fair to the NSA, we never really know how many attacks other things the CIA prevented over the years either. They don't really publish that stuff. There is oversight and a lot of senators that I trust seem to be ok with the program, so I'm willing to take their word that it is helping.
That's laughable. The director of the NSA has lied over a dozen times, under oath, to congress. Why exactly do you trust them?
The oversight is the FISA courts right now which are not a good oversight mechanism. Much more of rubber stamping.
We're only trying to get things fixed now. And there is considerable opposition from authoritarians.
It is more moronic for someone to resort to ad hom in a discussion like this. The issue is not that you cannot complain about oppression in other countries. The issue is, especially among Americans who claim themselves to be the world`s police and moral center, they are fast to complain about "problems" in other countries, yet do not even bother to raise a finger towards problems commited by their own culture and government, often far greater, such as those I mentioned: military intervention, breach of privacy, terrorism, etc. Yeah you can complain about gender equality in Russia, but where is the rage in all the human rights violation commited by America? Where is the rage? We have a word for this - HYPROCRISY.
Don't know where the fuck you've been, dear, but Americans complain about America all the time.
Really love? So why the fuck is the NSA still doing what it has been illegally doing all these years? Where are these complaints you are talking about? Who are these complainants? It seems you are a little out of touch with reality,
You do know that was a secret government program that even most congressmen didn't know about, right?
Om Jesus are you seriously this retarded? We are talking about it NOW. NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS OUT. Why are there still no complaints or massive action (which you think is happening in your naive little mind) NOW?
User was warned for this post
There is action. Our congress is reviewing it and making is more transparent. They are working on better oversite and we know more about the program every day. And they have also proven that it is effective at warning of terrorist attacks, hence the shut down of US embassys this week.
Nope on the last part. It's helped against terrorists in at most one case.
Well, to be fair to the NSA, we never really know how many attacks other things the CIA prevented over the years either. They don't really publish that stuff. There is oversight and a lot of senators that I trust seem to be ok with the program, so I'm willing to take their word that it is helping.
That's laughable. The director of the NSA has lied over a dozen times, under oath, to congress. Why exactly do you trust them?
The oversight is the FISA courts right now which are not a good oversight mechanism. Much more of rubber stamping.
We're only trying to get things fixed now. And there is considerable opposition from authoritarians.
I stated my personal opinion on the subject and I have done my research on it. I am not worried about it. If you want to be, your entitled to be. It also helps that I had a brother that was overseas in a very dangerous section of the middle east for the last year, so my concerns were a little more than if the NSA was reading my texts.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
And many western countries have it the other way round. Say "homosexuality is sinful" and you'll get arrested (recently an American pastor got arrested in England for doing just that, I believe). Say that the number of Holocaust victims might need revision and you might have to serve some jail time.
Neither party cares about freedom of speech or equality. The same applies to most influential feminists nowadays, who couldn't care less about men getting the short end of the stick (false rape accusations, child custody, etc.).
Source please or stop the equivocation. And yes people do care about free speech. Look up the ACLU.
Then you have countries that want to outlaw the words like "father" and "mother" and replace them with "parent A" and "parent B" or such (I believe France wants to introduce such a law). Or countries that want to outlaw gender-specific toilets or force men to urinate while sitting (was that Sweden?).
All in all, both sides just want to legally enforce their respective agendas.
Yes and those countries outlaw hate speach because they have issues with peopel attempting to start riots or there is a risk the speaker would be harmed. Even the US stops rallies if there is a large thread of violence.
And I would be ok with Russia limiting free speech if they had good reason to beleive that it could cause a riot at the Olympics or lead to a lot of people getting hurt. People have a right to be safe. But that is not the reasoning they are providing.
Well, in that case you just justified what Russia did, lol. (Although I find your first paragraph ridiculous. Limiting free speech for people's own sake, really?)
On August 08 2013 23:01 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Source? Mainstream media (print, tv, etc) coverage or actual unequivocal critical position against NSA, legitimate website and not some obscure fan page in facebook or what not, or any legitimate source at all that Americans are really up in arms about the NSA and all the abuses by the US government.
Go to CNN and look it up yourself. Just type in NSA and you will see the numerious hearings we have had on the subject and every news agency and tech company reporting on it. Google will handle that for you no problem.
You know what's funny? I can quote this verbatim and give the same advice to you and see as many if not more evidence that there is none of this "Americans up in arms against NSA/US human rights violation" you are talking about. So again, please show me the evidence.
"I'm too lazy to actually look up what is widely available, so I'm going to pretend that it just isn't there."
As someone who does live in this country, I can tell you right now that whenever you bring up this topic, people are pissed. Furthermore, there's something on the topic just about every week on CNN/FOX/MSNBC. People are quite critical of it, and there are talks in Congress about introducing bills to limit the NSA's scope.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
And many western countries have it the other way round. Say "homosexuality is sinful" and you'll get arrested (recently an American pastor got arrested in England for doing just that, I believe). Say that the number of Holocaust victims might need revision and you might have to serve some jail time.
Neither party cares about freedom of speech or equality. The same applies to most influential feminists nowadays, who couldn't care less about men getting the short end of the stick (false rape accusations, child custody, etc.).
Source please or stop the equivocation. And yes people do care about free speech. Look up the ACLU.
Then you have countries that want to outlaw the words like "father" and "mother" and replace them with "parent A" and "parent B" or such (I believe France wants to introduce such a law). Or countries that want to outlaw gender-specific toilets or force men to urinate while sitting (was that Sweden?).
All in all, both sides just want to legally enforce their respective agendas.
Yes and those countries outlaw hate speach because they have issues with peopel attempting to start riots or there is a risk the speaker would be harmed. Even the US stops rallies if there is a large thread of violence.
And I would be ok with Russia limiting free speech if they had good reason to beleive that it could cause a riot at the Olympics or lead to a lot of people getting hurt. People have a right to be safe. But that is not the reasoning they are providing.
Well, in that case you just justified what Russia did, lol. (Although I find your first paragraph ridiculous. Limiting free speech for people's own sake, really?)
They do it all the time. Once someone becomes endangered, it is up to the police to protect them, endangering them as well. Of course their are limits and if people pressed the issue, I am sure they couldn't stop them from speaking, but may want demand the person move the date or change the venue.
Freedom of Speech is limited and always has been.
And I would accept that as Russia's reasoning. But they have not put forth that as their reasoning and there is strong evidence they simply wish to limit the speech of gays and their ability to protest.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
No, that's dumb. You don't support tolerance and open mindedness but also support intolerance and closed mindedness of other people.
What the hell is this new "Your not open minded at all. You are not in support of other people CHOICE repress gays and remove their ability to protest and speak freely. What kind of progressive are you?"(sneer face)
So we have the olympics in Beijing, China, a few years ago. In China, the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one. People get locked up in prison without trial or reason, where they are often mistreated and starved to death or tortured. No one bats an eyelid, and gold medals are passed around.
A few journalists make a note of Russia's political stance on sexuality before the next olympics even start, and everyone loses their f*** mind. People's reactions seem very misplaced in my opinion.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
No, that's dumb. You don't support tolerance and open mindedness but also support intolerance and closed mindedness of other people.
What the hell is this new "Your not open minded at all. You are not in support of other people CHOICE repress gays and remove their ability to protest and speak freely. What kind of progressive are you?"(sneer face)
So we have the olympics in Beijing, China, a few years ago. In China, the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one. People get locked up in prison without trial or reason, where they are often mistreated and starved to death or tortured. No one bats an eyelid, and gold medals are passed around.
A few journalists make a note of Russia's political stance on sexuality before the next olympics even start, and everyone loses their f*** mind. People's reactions seem very misplaced in my opinion.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
And many western countries have it the other way round. Say "homosexuality is sinful" and you'll get arrested (recently an American pastor got arrested in England for doing just that, I believe). Say that the number of Holocaust victims might need revision and you might have to serve some jail time.
Neither party cares about freedom of speech or equality. The same applies to most influential feminists nowadays, who couldn't care less about men getting the short end of the stick (false rape accusations, child custody, etc.).
Source please or stop the equivocation. And yes people do care about free speech. Look up the ACLU.
Then you have countries that want to outlaw the words like "father" and "mother" and replace them with "parent A" and "parent B" or such (I believe France wants to introduce such a law). Or countries that want to outlaw gender-specific toilets or force men to urinate while sitting (was that Sweden?).
All in all, both sides just want to legally enforce their respective agendas.
I am not in favor of hate speech laws (although I do favor hatecrime laws). Although I could see that as just general harassment.
I don't like the equivocation at all, and I'll bring up the ACLU again. It's often been labeled a "far-left" organization even though it has defended Rush Limbaugh and things like homophobic speech.
Edit: The parent A and parent B are for government forms like birth certificates. The fact that you think children should have incorrect government forms because of some bizarre ideology is one of the most fucked up things I've ever heard.
On August 08 2013 22:00 shinosai wrote: So just to be clear, you think a country should be allowed to do whatever it wants within its own borders, and no other country has a say in it.
My ignorant opinion on this subject can be expressed by answering to this - as long as the majority of that country is for it - Yes. I do think any country can do, whatever, inside their borders.
So if 51% of Britain voted in favour of the police rounding up all non Brits living in Britain and putting them into Death Camps that would be perfectly legitimate?
On August 08 2013 23:01 Christ the Redeemer wrote: Source? Mainstream media (print, tv, etc) coverage or actual unequivocal critical position against NSA, legitimate website and not some obscure fan page in facebook or what not, or any legitimate source at all that Americans are really up in arms about the NSA and all the abuses by the US government.
I'm still pretty curious how the NSA's problems make Russia's problems any better.
I really want to swat you like a fly with your love for logical fallacy and lazy thinking, but I'll play nice. NO ONE is saying that because of NSA, we could forget about Russia. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for some people, especially Americans, to really be so riled up on Russia's human rights violation while they seem pretty fine with the violations of their own government. Hypocrisy, that's all. So unless anyone can provide me a legitimate source that indeed America is all up in arms about violations by its own government, I think I rest my case,
It is not necessarily hypocritical to support the actions of the NSA while still being 'riled up' against Russia's human rights violations. It is a perfectly possible to not consider privacy a human right, while still considering gay rights as important.
Also, there is the possibility that Americans oppose both the actions of the NSA and the actions of the Russian government. Which would also mean that there is no hypocrisy.
It is indeed best that you rest your case, because your case is terrible.
On August 02 2013 08:32 QuackPocketDuck wrote: Can someone explain to me why gay people have to be proud of their sexual orientation?
Could you explain to me why way more gay people have to hide their sexual orientation? I'm interested and totally listening.
They don't have to hide it. They just have to act normally. Heterosexuals don't go around shouting "I'm straight, WOO, straight pride 4 life!", so Homosexuals shouldn't either. There's just no need for it.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
If someone says "gee, gays should get the same marriage rights." That person is breaking the law. Thats exactly the kind of Orwellian bullshit that even homophobes should not support. But I guess you hate gay people enough to take away your own rights. Most impressive.
And I enjoyed your nonsense comparisons to Snowden and Manning, somehow comparing the right to assembly to whistleblowers. Hate to break it to you, but in America people protest everything all the time. I would know, I live in DC. Just last week a bunch of "ex-gays" protested the supreme court about some nonsense. We didnt arrest them. Because we believe in free speech. The fact that your country has a history of being a totalitarian hellhole should make this all the more concerning to you.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
And many western countries have it the other way round. Say "homosexuality is sinful" and you'll get arrested (recently an American pastor got arrested in England for doing just that, I believe). Say that the number of Holocaust victims might need revision and you might have to serve some jail time.
Neither party cares about freedom of speech or equality. The same applies to most influential feminists nowadays, who couldn't care less about men getting the short end of the stick (false rape accusations, child custody, etc.).
Source please or stop the equivocation. And yes people do care about free speech. Look up the ACLU.
Then you have countries that want to outlaw the words like "father" and "mother" and replace them with "parent A" and "parent B" or such (I believe France wants to introduce such a law). Or countries that want to outlaw gender-specific toilets or force men to urinate while sitting (was that Sweden?).
All in all, both sides just want to legally enforce their respective agendas.
Yes and those countries outlaw hate speach because they have issues with peopel attempting to start riots or there is a risk the speaker would be harmed. Even the US stops rallies if there is a large thread of violence.
And I would be ok with Russia limiting free speech if they had good reason to beleive that it could cause a riot at the Olympics or lead to a lot of people getting hurt. People have a right to be safe. But that is not the reasoning they are providing.
Well, in that case you just justified what Russia did, lol. (Although I find your first paragraph ridiculous. Limiting free speech for people's own sake, really?)
They do it all the time. Once someone becomes endangered, it is up to the police to protect them, endangering them as well. Of course their are limits and if people pressed the issue, I am sure they couldn't stop them from speaking, but may want demand the person move the date or change the venue.
Freedom of Speech is limited and always has been.
And I would accept that as Russia's reasoning. But they have not put forth that as their reasoning and there is strong evidence they simply wish to limit the speech of gays and their ability to protest.
The thing is, western countries don't limit free speech, etc. to protect, say, preachers preaching against acts of homosexuality. Your justification is made up and is not how those countries justify it in the least. You can watch the video in one of the articles I provided. The police officer did not say "Sir, I have to arrest you, lest you get lynched by a raging mob of homosexuals." He said "Sir, I have to arrest you because what you did qualifies as hate speech." The purpose is limiting freedom of speech.
edit: It is no different from Islamic countries forbidding any criticism of Koran or the prophet.
On August 02 2013 08:32 QuackPocketDuck wrote: Can someone explain to me why gay people have to be proud of their sexual orientation?
Could you explain to me why way more gay people have to hide their sexual orientation? I'm interested and totally listening.
They don't have to hide it. They just have to act normally. Heterosexuals don't go around shouting "I'm straight, WOO, straight pride 4 life!", so Homosexuals shouldn't either. There's just no need for it.
Can they kiss their girlfriend in public? Can they talk about relationship problems they're having? Can they have political opinions about free speech? Because these are normal people things.
And actually I know plenty of guys who talk about the hot girl they banged or whatever. Apparently that's considered normal for some reason.
On August 02 2013 08:32 QuackPocketDuck wrote: Can someone explain to me why gay people have to be proud of their sexual orientation?
Could you explain to me why way more gay people have to hide their sexual orientation? I'm interested and totally listening.
They don't have to hide it. They just have to act normally. Heterosexuals don't go around shouting "I'm straight, WOO, straight pride 4 life!", so Homosexuals shouldn't either. There's just no need for it.
You're kidding. You can't tell a gay teenager that being gay is ok in Russia, that's breaking the law.
That's a far cry from "acting normally" - whatever that exceptionally dumb phrase means.
French kissing your girlfriend in public places is kinda frowned upon though when adults do it,unless its like a short kiss or in some clubs/dancings/on the beach/in the park. It realy is not that common. I dont see it every day at least.(luckily i might add)
Thread is kinda fun btw, are swedes realy eliminating gender toilets and "forcing" man to take a piss sitting? Seems like a waste of resources, a male urinoir is cheaper then a full toilet.
On August 08 2013 23:59 Rassy wrote: French kissing your girlfriend in public places is kinda frowned upon though when adults do it,unless its like a short kiss or in some clubs/dancings/on the beach/in the park. It realy is not that common. I dont see it every day at least.(luckily i might add)
He didn't say french kissing, and way to totally miss the point.
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Very open minded and thought out. You are a prince of tolerance.
We just think that it is not normal. By normal I mean that about 99% of population are not gay.
What if a completely blind-born person would participate in a particular (doable) sport at the olympics. He's not normal, he's definitely not similar to 99% of the population.
Do you go about beating, persecuting and banning him from the event? No, not unless you're living in the 7th fucking century. Which is kinda the point everyone's trying to make.
Why do you think that in Russia gays are being beaten persecuted and banned from sport? You are completely and totaly wrong. Goverment does not support persecuton of gays.
Oh sorry, that's probably waaay over your head. Continue talking about how homosexuality is "unnatural." It's all you know.
You only think that homosexuality is natural or you have very solid evidences? Would you care to share them with me. I honestly wish to know why do you think why homosexuality is natural.
And please be more polite in your posts because from some of your remarks I start to believe that your tolerance is only limited with gay. Do you come or do you not come from the most tolerant society toward all other people and their beliefs?
What are your reasons to think homosexuality is not 'natural', exactly?
My reason is very simple. There live about 7 bln people on earth right now. All 7 bln people were born from hetero couples. There is no single person who was born from gay couple.
So we have 7 bln evidences that hetero couple are normal and 0 evidences that gay couple are normal.
I have been searching long and far for the dumbest argument. My long search is over.
What will I do now? Will I find more meaning to my life? My search may be over, but my life has only just begun.
It's funny to us, but yeah, this is how a lot of people from this region think. It's deeply ingrained into the culture. It's quite fascinating.
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
i find it amusing and shocking at the same time how little the very basics of western society are understood by people not coming form a western country.
the concept of universal rights must be very hard to grasp.
But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street?
Doesn't matter it isn't hurting anyone, so why stop people from doing it?
It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years,
No it's not against the "law of nature" , homosexuality is common under all species and yes humanity has lived with it since thousands of years. Or do you think people started being gay 20 years ago?
What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? shouldn't choose it at that age.
Propaganda implies some kind of manipulative influence, which is not the case because you are either gay or not. Can't do anything about it.
I suggest you take a biology course before you start bragging about what's "natural".
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Dude, it's two guys kissing. Who cares? Are you really that immature and childish? Grow up.
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Ignorance. Simply ignorance and the culture beating you over the head with same nonsense. It's not meant as an insult btw.
Here are some facts for you. Homosexual relationships are natural in a sense that they happen in nature. Plenty of species have them. Yes, it's not "normal" (gays can't reproduce). Yes, you can call it an anomaly. But your argument is terrible. It's not any different than any other anomaly in nature. Most people are born with 2 arms and 5 fingers. Some aren't. Do you discriminate against them too? What's your criteria for discrimination?
Also, homosexuals existed long before "our times". A lot of famous figures have been speculated to be homosexuals. It's likely to be nature's way of controlling the population growth. The only thing happening nowadays is that people don't need to hide as much and live their lives in misery trying to pretend they're something they're not, so we hear it about it more. Saying that humanity is in danger because "more people are becoming gay" is simply ridiculous. No other word for it.
And NO, children won't become gay if they see gays. That's not how basic biological attraction works. You can't just choose to suddenly be attracted to a different sex. Did you ever have a thought "I guess I will make girls, not boys"? Did you ever have to make a decision be attracted to a certain girl? Well gays brains' are wired differently, they find same sex attractive. That's it. We can't change it, it doesn't hurt anyone and discriminating other human beings for that reason is illogical.
You're making these arguments because you never researched the subject and this is what your culture taught you. And IT'S WRONG. IT'S SIMPLY WRONG. I know it's hard to accept that, but try.
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Dude, it's two guys kissing. Who cares? Are you really that immature and childish? Grow up.
How does it actually make you immature and childish whenever you don't like to see anything?
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Dude, it's two guys kissing. Who cares? Are you really that immature and childish? Grow up.
How does it actually make you immature and childish whenever you don't like to see anything?
"Ewww kissing! That's gross! Girls have cooties!!"
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Ignorance. Simply ignorance and the culture beating you over the head with same nonsense.
Here are some facts for you. Homosexual relationships are natural in a sense that they happen in nature. Plenty of species have them. Yes, it's not "normal" (gays can't reproduce). Yes, you can call it an anomaly. But your argument is terrible. It's not any different than any other anomaly in nature. Most people are born with 2 arms and 5 fingers. Some aren't. Do you discriminate against them too? What's your criteria for discrimination?
Also, homosexuals existed long before "our times". A lot of famous figures have been speculated to be homosexuals. It's likely to be nature's way of controlling the population growth. The only thing happening nowadays is that people don't need to hide as much and live their lives in misery trying to pretend they're something they're not, so we hear it about it more. Saying that humanity is in danger because "more people are becoming gay" is simply ridiculous. No other word for it.
And NO, children won't become gay if they see gays. That's not how basic biological attraction works. You can't just choose to suddenly be attracted to a different sex. Did you ever have a thought "I guess I will make girls, not boys"? Did you ever have to make a decision be attracted to a certain girl? Well gays brains' are wired differently, they find same sex attractive. That's it. We can't change it, it doesn't hurt anyone and discriminating other human beings for that reason is illogical.
You're making these arguments because you never researched the subject and this is what your culture taught you. And IT'S WRONG. IT'S SIMPLY WRONG. I know it's hard to accept that, but try.
I don't really understand you telling me my culture is wrong just because your argument rely on comparison gays between people borning with 1 hand or whatever so, it's hard to not follow the society which consists fully out of gays? don't you think so? We can argue for infinite but the thing the western culture wants to force us to think like they do is already wrong, homosexuality was never appreciated in our country and why would we change our mind in favor of homosexuals? Noone forced you to vote for Olympics in Russia, it's only your choose, and since so you need to respect our laws and culture.
do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Dude, it's two guys kissing. Who cares? Are you really that immature and childish? Grow up.
How does it actually make you immature and childish whenever you don't like to see anything?
"Ewww kissing! That's gross! Girls have cooties!!"
That's my impression of you.
My impression would be " Oh wait, he isn't kissing a girl *vomit* "
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Dude, it's two guys kissing. Who cares? Are you really that immature and childish? Grow up.
How does it actually make you immature and childish whenever you don't like to see anything?
Yes, straight people may not "like it". You may find it "disgusting". But have you ever thought that gays have to put up with whole society built around straight people? All the movies having a boy and a girl falling in love? Straight couples having no trouble kissing each other in public? Have you thought they might find it "disgusting" too because that's just not what they find attractive? No one is telling you to watch it, but you could also be a lot more tolerant and be happy that two people have this kind of relationship.
That's why we like to separate ourselves from other animals, it's because we have this brain and can make rational decisions rather than "ew this makes me sick" ones. No one is asking you to suddenly change, but maybe the next time you see some gay guy on TV you shouldn't think "kakoj pidor", but stop yourself and understand that it's just another person like you and me who just wants to be treated fairly.
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in.
So as a non Jewish Caucasian I shouldn't care about the holocaust or the slave trade?
Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly.
Okay this is instance number of you totally missing the entire point. This is clearly the foundations of how you came to such a idiotic mindset. There is no "they". "They" do no exist, "They" is not a thing nor have "they" ever been a thing ever. People are individuals, if a Chinese man kills your sister that has absolutely fuck all to do with any of the other 1 billion people on this earth of Chinese origin. If a gay man runs over your dog that has fuck all to do with any other gay men. If a black man steals all your money posing as a Nigerian prince that has nothing at all to do with the other 2 billion+ black people in the world. Do you understand this basic concept?
But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street?
I don't really care, I don't get any sexual arousal from but neither do if old people or people I find unattractive are kissing but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed because what other people do or put on TV is none of my business.
It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this,
Men have been having sex with other men since the dawn of time, homosexuality is as old as heterosexuality. There are people throughout history in every society who have been gay.
but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal.
No, you do not have democracy. Russia had democracy for about 6 months in 1917 and has never had it before or since then. I live in a democracy, you most certainly do not.
What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
People do not choose to be gay, and even if they did it's absolutely none of your business what consenting adults choose to do. Watching men kiss does not make me want to do it myself anymore than watching a 30 stone woman have sex would make me want to have sex with a 30 stone woman.
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Ignorance. Simply ignorance and the culture beating you over the head with same nonsense.
Here are some facts for you. Homosexual relationships are natural in a sense that they happen in nature. Plenty of species have them. Yes, it's not "normal" (gays can't reproduce). Yes, you can call it an anomaly. But your argument is terrible. It's not any different than any other anomaly in nature. Most people are born with 2 arms and 5 fingers. Some aren't. Do you discriminate against them too? What's your criteria for discrimination?
Also, homosexuals existed long before "our times". A lot of famous figures have been speculated to be homosexuals. It's likely to be nature's way of controlling the population growth. The only thing happening nowadays is that people don't need to hide as much and live their lives in misery trying to pretend they're something they're not, so we hear it about it more. Saying that humanity is in danger because "more people are becoming gay" is simply ridiculous. No other word for it.
And NO, children won't become gay if they see gays. That's not how basic biological attraction works. You can't just choose to suddenly be attracted to a different sex. Did you ever have a thought "I guess I will make girls, not boys"? Did you ever have to make a decision be attracted to a certain girl? Well gays brains' are wired differently, they find same sex attractive. That's it. We can't change it, it doesn't hurt anyone and discriminating other human beings for that reason is illogical.
You're making these arguments because you never researched the subject and this is what your culture taught you. And IT'S WRONG. IT'S SIMPLY WRONG. I know it's hard to accept that, but try.
I don't really understand you telling me my culture is wrong just because your argument rely on comparison gays between people borning with 1 hand or whatever so, it's hard to not follow the society which consists fully out of gays? don't you think so? We can argue for infinite but the thing the western culture wants to force us to think like they do is already wrong, homosexuality was never appreciated in our country and why would we change our mind in favor of homosexuals? Noone forced you to vote for Olympics in Russia, it's only your choose, and since so you need to respect our laws and culture.
If I were to go to Russia, I'd probably do what I needed to do to avoid getting arrested.
However, in general, there is absolutely no need to "respect" bigotry.
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
haha, personally i don't have anything about lesbians since i'm a man haha :D
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
I'm presuming they only watch lesbian porn as by watching straight porn there's the chance your eyes might move a little too close to the man's throbbing penis and turn you into a gay. At least that's how our Russian comrades tell me it happens.
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Ignorance. Simply ignorance and the culture beating you over the head with same nonsense.
Here are some facts for you. Homosexual relationships are natural in a sense that they happen in nature. Plenty of species have them. Yes, it's not "normal" (gays can't reproduce). Yes, you can call it an anomaly. But your argument is terrible. It's not any different than any other anomaly in nature. Most people are born with 2 arms and 5 fingers. Some aren't. Do you discriminate against them too? What's your criteria for discrimination?
Also, homosexuals existed long before "our times". A lot of famous figures have been speculated to be homosexuals. It's likely to be nature's way of controlling the population growth. The only thing happening nowadays is that people don't need to hide as much and live their lives in misery trying to pretend they're something they're not, so we hear it about it more. Saying that humanity is in danger because "more people are becoming gay" is simply ridiculous. No other word for it.
And NO, children won't become gay if they see gays. That's not how basic biological attraction works. You can't just choose to suddenly be attracted to a different sex. Did you ever have a thought "I guess I will make girls, not boys"? Did you ever have to make a decision be attracted to a certain girl? Well gays brains' are wired differently, they find same sex attractive. That's it. We can't change it, it doesn't hurt anyone and discriminating other human beings for that reason is illogical.
You're making these arguments because you never researched the subject and this is what your culture taught you. And IT'S WRONG. IT'S SIMPLY WRONG. I know it's hard to accept that, but try.
I don't really understand you telling me my culture is wrong just because your argument rely on comparison gays between people borning with 1 hand or whatever so, it's hard to not follow the society which consists fully out of gays? don't you think so? We can argue for infinite but the thing the western culture wants to force us to think like they do is already wrong, homosexuality was never appreciated in our country and why would we change our mind in favor of homosexuals? Noone forced you to vote for Olympics in Russia, it's only your choose, and since so you need to respect our laws and culture.
If I were to go to Russia, I'd probably do what I needed to do to avoid getting arrested.
However, in general, there is absolutely no need to "respect" bigotry.
The most important thing i saw in your post, is that most of people are still thinking stereotypic. OMG RUSSIA, bears, vodka, everyone kills each other. haha i can say the opposite thing trying to popularize homosexuality is the biggest bigotry nowadays
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
haha, personally i don't have anything about lesbians since i'm a man haha :D
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Ignorance. Simply ignorance and the culture beating you over the head with same nonsense.
Here are some facts for you. Homosexual relationships are natural in a sense that they happen in nature. Plenty of species have them. Yes, it's not "normal" (gays can't reproduce). Yes, you can call it an anomaly. But your argument is terrible. It's not any different than any other anomaly in nature. Most people are born with 2 arms and 5 fingers. Some aren't. Do you discriminate against them too? What's your criteria for discrimination?
Also, homosexuals existed long before "our times". A lot of famous figures have been speculated to be homosexuals. It's likely to be nature's way of controlling the population growth. The only thing happening nowadays is that people don't need to hide as much and live their lives in misery trying to pretend they're something they're not, so we hear it about it more. Saying that humanity is in danger because "more people are becoming gay" is simply ridiculous. No other word for it.
And NO, children won't become gay if they see gays. That's not how basic biological attraction works. You can't just choose to suddenly be attracted to a different sex. Did you ever have a thought "I guess I will make girls, not boys"? Did you ever have to make a decision be attracted to a certain girl? Well gays brains' are wired differently, they find same sex attractive. That's it. We can't change it, it doesn't hurt anyone and discriminating other human beings for that reason is illogical.
You're making these arguments because you never researched the subject and this is what your culture taught you. And IT'S WRONG. IT'S SIMPLY WRONG. I know it's hard to accept that, but try.
I don't really understand you telling me my culture is wrong just because your argument rely on comparison gays between people borning with 1 hand or whatever so, it's hard to not follow the society which consists fully out of gays? don't you think so? We can argue for infinite but the thing the western culture wants to force us to think like they do is already wrong, homosexuality was never appreciated in our country and why would we change our mind in favor of homosexuals? Noone forced you to vote for Olympics in Russia, it's only your choose, and since so you need to respect our laws and culture.
Again, you are simply wrong, but again, it's not your fault. There CANNOT be a "society full of gays" because that's not how nature works .No one can "become" gay or "transform" to being gay. I don't think you understand this part. You keep coming back to the same argument. I know it's hard for you to realise that homosexuality doesn't work the way you think it does and you have certain "pride" for being heterosexual. I grew up in the similar environment, but slowly realised that it's simply hate filled irrational belief and I tried to change it.
Why would you change your mind? Because it's a decent and humane thing to do? Because you're discriminating against people for something they cannot choose and aren't harming anyone which is completely irrational?
Your cultural norms are outdated and illogical. What you're saying is the same what people who supported racism were saying 50 years ago. We are better than that. People do respect your culture. But you take pride in wrong things. Discriminating people is not something you should be proud of.
EDIT: After what he wrote about lesbians, I would LIKE him to be just a troll to restore a little bit faith in humanity for me... But I know this culture and, yeah, unfortunately some people DO think this way and take some kind of pathetic pride in it. It's interesting..
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
haha, personally i don't have anything about lesbians since i'm a man haha :D
Ahhh... I get it. So basically if something isn't meant to turn you on it should be BANNED!!!
On August 08 2013 23:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On August 08 2013 23:46 sickless wrote: reading this thread i assumed the whole world community turned into homosexual society
Right, because not wanting to persecute homosexuals means you must be one too.
Just like being anti slave trade makes you black, or anti holocaust makes you jewish or anti holodomor makes you Ukranian.
You Russians slay me, you really do.
You shouldn't care about something in what you don't take in. Why would you, for example in russia, pay attention to hordes of workers from asia, who are working just everywhere in Moscow. Like it doesn't really relates to you unless they hurt someone of your friends, but whenever they do you change your mind immediatly. But man seriously, do you enjoy watching gays on tvs or kissing everywhere on the street? It's against the law of nature, this is not how the humanity lived for thousands years, we are not meant for this, but ok, since we have democracy, please be gays, but don't make other people to think it is normal. What do we mean under propaganda? It's simple, millions of people are watching tv, and even more children, do you really want your child to see kissing men and then he will try to repeat it? The mind of kid is not formed yet, at least until 16, he shouldn't choose it at that age.
Dude, it's two guys kissing. Who cares? Are you really that immature and childish? Grow up.
How does it actually make you immature and childish whenever you don't like to see anything?
"Ewww kissing! That's gross! Girls have cooties!!"
That's my impression of you.
My impression would be " Oh wait, he isn't kissing a girl *vomit* "
I think I like Russians more when they're feeding like idiots and spamming chat in a language I don't understand in Dota. I mean I had a pretty low opinion of them before but now I can actually know what they're thinking...
The Lincoln quote "Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt" comes to mind.
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
I'm presuming they only watch lesbian porn as by watching straight porn there's the chance your eyes might move a little too close to the man's throbbing penis and turn you into a gay. At least that's how our Russian comrades tell me it happens.
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
haha, personally i don't have anything about lesbians since i'm a man haha :D
Ahhh... I get it. So basically if something isn't meant to turn you on it should be BANNED!!!
That's been the logical basis for the Russian state for about 1500 years, why stop now? No surprise they missed the whole liberalism and democracy bandwagon.
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
haha, personally i don't have anything about lesbians since i'm a man haha :D
does this align with your morals okay? or are you comfortable admitting that the reason you support this law is because men being intimate makes you uncomfortable?
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
haha, personally i don't have anything about lesbians since i'm a man haha :D
So why shouldn't heterosexual Russian women be able to enjoy the view of two men kissing ?
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
haha, personally i don't have anything about lesbians since i'm a man haha :D
So why shouldn't heterosexual Russian women be able to enjoy the view of two men kissing ?
I can't imagine this guy has the highest opinion of women either.
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
The list of European kings who were "effeminate" in dress and manner is a pretty long one... name a prince losing his rights merely over a suspicion of being effeminate because I read European history pretty extensively with a focus on the Middle Ages to the modern era (circa 1700) and I've never read of an example of a prince being deposed because the nobles thought he was teh gay. Edward II of England was more or less openly bisexual, he ruled as King of England and only got murdered because he was a mouth-breathing incompetent (being bisexual didn't help but it wasn't the main reason).
Also maybe Christ the Redeemer shouldn't be Troofering around (false flag attacks lol) while trying the "but Joey broke two windows I only broke one!" argument.
On August 09 2013 00:47 ComaDose wrote: do ya'll homophobic Russians hate lesbians too or just gay men? like your kid is seeing men and women kiss on tv and thats okay. then they see a man and a man kiss and that's not okay. is two girls kissing okay? have you ever looked up lesbian porn or anythin? im just wondering
haha, personally i don't have anything about lesbians since i'm a man haha :D
You are the epitome of someone who wants to create a society with only themselves in mind. I am not sure if I can even connect such a mindset to ethnocentrism, nationalism, or traditionalism it just sounds like to me that you are narcissistic.
Legislation here (Russia) is pretty dumb.. Most people I know have become cynical and apathetic when it comes to topics like our government and many of its absurdities. Governments are rigid and corrupt in most countries, but here its rigid, corrupt, and lacking in fear or boundries. Maybe after a period of kgb atrocities and gulags, the russian people have been socially engineered to feel powerless when it comes to voicing "controversial" opinions, which contradict the narrowminded agenda of the ruling class.. My hope is that a transition to humanism and reason is inevitable. That its only a question of time..
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
sorry is your point that 4 is not many and that homophobia is also old?
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
sorry is your point that 4 is not many and that homophobia is also old?
Yeah, that's what you should get out of it. People like to think that homophobia popped out of christianity and the bible and then they reference the greeks and the romans as "enlightened" societies that accepted homosexuality. Of course that is far from the truth, and most all cultures had some kind of a ban on homosexuality throughout the ages. Hating on gay people isn't new, and society being open to homosexuality in the world is far from the truth.
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
sorry is your point that 4 is not many and that homophobia is also old?
Yeah, that's what you should get out of it. People like to think that homophobia popped out of christianity and the bible and then they reference the greeks and the romans as "enlightened" societies that accepted homosexuality. Of course that is far from the truth, and most all cultures had some kind of a ban on homosexuality throughout the ages. Hating on gay people isn't new, and society being open to homosexuality in the world is far from the truth.
but wern't the greeks and the romans societies that accepted homosexuality? and considering most people argue with equal human rights wouldn't they be enlightened? and this acceptance in Rome did end with the church.
but yeah there are people that oppress people other places in history just as far back i'm sure.
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
sorry is your point that 4 is not many and that homophobia is also old?
Yeah, that's what you should get out of it. People like to think that homophobia popped out of christianity and the bible and then they reference the greeks and the romans as "enlightened" societies that accepted homosexuality. Of course that is far from the truth, and most all cultures had some kind of a ban on homosexuality throughout the ages. Hating on gay people isn't new, and society being open to homosexuality in the world is far from the truth.
but wern't the greeks and the romans societies that accepted homosexuality? and considering most people argue with equal human rights wouldn't they be enlightened? and this acceptance in Rome did end with the church.
but yeah there are people that oppress people other places in history just as far back i'm sure.
I would disagree. From what I read about homosexuality in ancient times, pederasty was tolerated, not accepted, and homosexuality between two adult males was just viewed with disgust. And you were seen as disgusting, especially if you were the person receiving.
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
sorry is your point that 4 is not many and that homophobia is also old?
Yeah, that's what you should get out of it. People like to think that homophobia popped out of christianity and the bible and then they reference the greeks and the romans as "enlightened" societies that accepted homosexuality. Of course that is far from the truth, and most all cultures had some kind of a ban on homosexuality throughout the ages. Hating on gay people isn't new, and society being open to homosexuality in the world is far from the truth.
but wern't the greeks and the romans societies that accepted homosexuality? and considering most people argue with equal human rights wouldn't they be enlightened? and this acceptance in Rome did end with the church.
but yeah there are people that oppress people other places in history just as far back i'm sure.
I would disagree. From what I read about homosexuality in ancient times, pederasty was tolerated, not accepted, and homosexuality between two adult males was just viewed with disgust.
damn so there was never a time in history that gays were not oppressed thats a bummer
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
sorry is your point that 4 is not many and that homophobia is also old?
Yeah, that's what you should get out of it. People like to think that homophobia popped out of christianity and the bible and then they reference the greeks and the romans as "enlightened" societies that accepted homosexuality. Of course that is far from the truth, and most all cultures had some kind of a ban on homosexuality throughout the ages. Hating on gay people isn't new, and society being open to homosexuality in the world is far from the truth.
but wern't the greeks and the romans societies that accepted homosexuality? and considering most people argue with equal human rights wouldn't they be enlightened? and this acceptance in Rome did end with the church.
but yeah there are people that oppress people other places in history just as far back i'm sure.
I would disagree. From what I read about homosexuality in ancient times, pederasty was tolerated, not accepted, and homosexuality between two adult males was just viewed with disgust.
In general, tolerance was not a thing people did back then, of really anything. Rulers got away being being homosexual because they ruled and not one could stop them. The same with the wealthy.
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
sorry is your point that 4 is not many and that homophobia is also old?
Yeah, that's what you should get out of it. People like to think that homophobia popped out of christianity and the bible and then they reference the greeks and the romans as "enlightened" societies that accepted homosexuality. Of course that is far from the truth, and most all cultures had some kind of a ban on homosexuality throughout the ages. Hating on gay people isn't new, and society being open to homosexuality in the world is far from the truth.
but wern't the greeks and the romans societies that accepted homosexuality? and considering most people argue with equal human rights wouldn't they be enlightened? and this acceptance in Rome did end with the church.
but yeah there are people that oppress people other places in history just as far back i'm sure.
I would disagree. From what I read about homosexuality in ancient times, pederasty was tolerated, not accepted, and homosexuality between two adult males was just viewed with disgust.
damn so there was never a time in history that gays were not oppressed thats a bummer
If it makes you feel better, everyone was oppressed back then. They didn't really focus the oppression of the ages, it just sucked for everyone.
On August 09 2013 00:12 ComaDose wrote: maybe we should tell him that thousands of years ago many of the leaders were openly gay
Only the Carthan, Roman, Turkish and Greek city states and later empires were. Turkey and many parts of Middle East still practices sexual pedastry.
Not Mahajapit empire, All Chinese Dynasties, All Indian Sultanates, Ethiopian kingdom, Nepalese, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese empire, Korean, Norse Vikings, Pre-2000 British Empire, Spanish Empire, pre-2000AD Dutch Kingdom, French kingdom, German Kaisers.
These are historical facts, princes losing their right to the throne merely on suspicion of being effeminate.
sorry is your point that 4 is not many and that homophobia is also old?
Yeah, that's what you should get out of it. People like to think that homophobia popped out of christianity and the bible and then they reference the greeks and the romans as "enlightened" societies that accepted homosexuality. Of course that is far from the truth, and most all cultures had some kind of a ban on homosexuality throughout the ages. Hating on gay people isn't new, and society being open to homosexuality in the world is far from the truth.
but wern't the greeks and the romans societies that accepted homosexuality? and considering most people argue with equal human rights wouldn't they be enlightened? and this acceptance in Rome did end with the church.
but yeah there are people that oppress people other places in history just as far back i'm sure.
I would disagree. From what I read about homosexuality in ancient times, pederasty was tolerated, not accepted, and homosexuality between two adult males was just viewed with disgust.
damn so there was never a time in history that gays were not oppressed thats a bummer
There are some very interesting stories about homosexuality in ancient China. I would not be that pessimistic.
I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
Why do I even try?
You're talking to one of the most homophobic people on TL, which you can see if you go through his post history. You'd probably be best off not trying.
Ancient views on homosexuality were obviously very diverse in some Greek poleis it was more accepted than in others at various (pre-Christian) times in the Roman Republic and Empire it was fine or again it was frowned upon... From what I've read before you were married (if you were a male of course) you were kind of expected to go buckwild and screw pretty much whoever you wanted but once you got married you were expected to be a bit more discreet and not so buckwild anymore. Being a married man and preferring still to boink young boys (or grown-up men) was not a good thing or in other places it didn't matter. And being an adult male on the receiving end was usually shameful as can be.
And of course the Greeks and the Romans were a small part of the world and a small part of history overall but they've had a huge influence on Western society and there's more available information about their societies than others so we focus on them.
And of course again these rules were for the middle and upper classes, depending on the views of the rulers the commoners were either placed under a more stringent standard or were ignored as long as they didn't riot.
Firstly, why does it matter. The fact that you are able to post on this forum pretty much proves that almost all you do in life is unnatural (as much as one can actually define that unspecific term). Your computer is unnatural. Your phone is unnatural. Whatever you do at your job is almost certainly unnatural. Your house is unnatural. You cook your unnatural food in an unnatural way. The clothing you wear is unnatural. If you look around right now, there is a high chance that everything you see is unnatural.
Secondly, it is not. Evolution does not make mistakes, simply because there is no goal beyond survival/reproduction. If a trait continues to exist, it is apparently not affecting that too negatively, because otherwise it would not continue to exist. With something as widespread and continuous through history as homosexuality, it apparently does not have a negative impact on the survival of the family, otherwise it would have been extinct quite a while ago. There are multiple theories as to why that might be the case, but the major one is kinship selection. Basically, it might be advantageous for a family to have a limited amount of gays in it. There is for example statistic proof that the female relatives of gay males on average have more children. Of course the gay people themselves don't reproduce, but if they increase the chances of survival of the children of their relatives by taking care of them, that trait can still be evolutionary useful, and the "gay gene" or whatever you want to call it gets passed on through their kin.
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
Why do I even try?
You're talking to one of the most homophobic people on TL, which you can see if you go through his post history. You'd probably be best off not trying.
Going around and insulting people, but it's ok. No one would expect more from you.
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
Why do I even try?
You're talking to one of the most homophobic people on TL, which you can see if you go through his post history. You'd probably be best off not trying.
Going around and insulting people, but it's ok. No one would expect more from you.
The evidence speaks for itself. You are extremely homophobic. That's not me trying to insult you - that's me stating the facts. In your past posts you have: (1) Argued that homosexual people ought not to be allowed to have children. (2) That TeamLiquid shouldn't have had their rainbow logo, which in no way even affects you. (3) Argued that gay people should have their 'rights' while simultaneously arguing that they should not be able to lobby for these rights. (4) Argued that a law which essentially reinforces homophobic violence and makes being gay in Russia very dangerous, is okay, because it's "their country." (5) Said that you find homosexual people disgusting.
You fit the definition. And I'm simply informing others that it is fruitless to argue with you (or at the very least let them know what sort of person they are dealing with), because you are obviously very set in your ways.
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
Why do I even try?
You're talking to one of the most homophobic people on TL, which you can see if you go through his post history. You'd probably be best off not trying.
Going around and insulting people, but it's ok. No one would expect more from you.
On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote: I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting. And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption
Yeah, I think Shinosai is definitely bullying and insulting you. Do you need a hug you poor wittle thing?
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
Why do I even try?
You're talking to one of the most homophobic people on TL, which you can see if you go through his post history. You'd probably be best off not trying.
Going around and insulting people, but it's ok. No one would expect more from you.
Doesn't seem very insulting to me. Homophobe is a very mild, though accurate, description of what you are. And arguing with you is frustrating and ultimately pointless.
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
Why do I even try?
You're talking to one of the most homophobic people on TL, which you can see if you go through his post history. You'd probably be best off not trying.
Going around and insulting people, but it's ok. No one would expect more from you.
On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote: I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting. And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption
Yeah, I think Shinosai is definitely bullying and insulting you. Do you need a hug you poor wittle thing?
Why would it be homophobic if I think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children? Their lifestyle brings with it that they will not have natural children. Adopting some is only about their own personal fulfillment, which should not and is not more important than the future of a child.
On August 09 2013 02:55 ComaDose wrote: isn't he just coming back from a ban? maybe we can get him riled up again.
You realize, that on this site you can make as many accounts as you wish? I don't, but I also don't think someone would care about being banned here lol.
So what is going to happen? Someone almost certainly will take a stand at the Olympics, even if it's so much as a rainbow flagpin or as much as talking to the media. What will the Russian authorities do then? Enforce the law and have an international incident?
A showdown of some sort seems inevitable at this point.
On August 09 2013 03:01 DoubleReed wrote: So what is going to happen? Someone almost certainly will take a stand at the Olympics, even if it's so much as a rainbow flagpin or as much as talking to the media. What will the Russian authorities do then? Enforce the law and have an international incident?
A showdown of some sort seems inevitable at this point.
Some athlete or group of athletes will say or do something and Russia won't have the stones to arrest them. After the Olympics are over the Kremlin will use the incident for propaganda aimed at Russians about how the degenerate foreigners don't respect Russia and want to destroy Russia through their degeneracy.
On August 09 2013 02:55 ComaDose wrote: isn't he just coming back from a ban? maybe we can get him riled up again.
You realize, that on this site you can make as many accounts as you wish? I don't, but I also don't think someone would care about being banned here lol.
On August 09 2013 02:55 ComaDose wrote: isn't he just coming back from a ban? maybe we can get him riled up again.
You realize, that on this site you can make as many accounts as you wish? I don't, but I also don't think someone would care about being banned here lol.
no you're only allowed one.
Yes, but you can still make as many as you want and it's very easy to hide. So I don't get your point how I would be sad about getting my account banned?
On August 09 2013 02:55 ComaDose wrote: isn't he just coming back from a ban? maybe we can get him riled up again.
You realize, that on this site you can make as many accounts as you wish? I don't, but I also don't think someone would care about being banned here lol.
no you're only allowed one.
Yes, but you can still make as many as you want and it's very easy to hide. So I don't get your point how I would be sad about getting my account banned?
On August 09 2013 02:55 ComaDose wrote: isn't he just coming back from a ban? maybe we can get him riled up again.
You realize, that on this site you can make as many accounts as you wish? I don't, but I also don't think someone would care about being banned here lol.
no you're only allowed one.
Yes, but you can still make as many as you want and it's very easy to hide. So I don't get your point how I would be sad about getting my account banned?
i never said that. its not easy to hide.
You implied that it would somehow negatively affect me if my account would get banned, it does not. And yes, it's very easy to hide. Maybe you are done derailing the thread and we can get back to topic.
On August 09 2013 02:55 ComaDose wrote: isn't he just coming back from a ban? maybe we can get him riled up again.
You realize, that on this site you can make as many accounts as you wish? I don't, but I also don't think someone would care about being banned here lol.
no you're only allowed one.
Yes, but you can still make as many as you want and it's very easy to hide. So I don't get your point how I would be sad about getting my account banned?
i never said that. its not easy to hide.
You implied that it would somehow negatively affect me if my account would get banned, it does not. And yes, it's very easy to hide. Maybe you are done derailing the thread and we can get back to topic.
On August 09 2013 02:55 ComaDose wrote: isn't he just coming back from a ban? maybe we can get him riled up again.
You realize, that on this site you can make as many accounts as you wish? I don't, but I also don't think someone would care about being banned here lol.
no you're only allowed one.
Yes, but you can still make as many as you want and it's very easy to hide. So I don't get your point how I would be sad about getting my account banned?
i never said that. its not easy to hide.
You implied that it would somehow negatively affect me if my account would get banned, it does not. And yes, it's very easy to hide. Maybe you are done derailing the thread and we can get back to topic.
no it would positively affect me
And that is enough to start derailing the thread? I don't think I should be the one getting banned.
On August 02 2013 08:32 QuackPocketDuck wrote: Can someone explain to me why gay people have to be proud of their sexual orientation?
Could you explain to me why way more gay people have to hide their sexual orientation? I'm interested and totally listening.
They don't have to hide it. They just have to act normally. Heterosexuals don't go around shouting "I'm straight, WOO, straight pride 4 life!", so Homosexuals shouldn't either. There's just no need for it.
Yeah. Homosexuals also don't rally up and run around with baseball bats, beating up heteros. Maybe look at the whole picture, not just the UK. Look at what happens worldwide. A normal acting gay would kiss his boyfriend openly on the street, and that already is considered acting not normal.
On August 09 2013 02:55 ComaDose wrote: isn't he just coming back from a ban? maybe we can get him riled up again.
You realize, that on this site you can make as many accounts as you wish? I don't, but I also don't think someone would care about being banned here lol.
no you're only allowed one.
Yes, but you can still make as many as you want and it's very easy to hide. So I don't get your point how I would be sad about getting my account banned?
i never said that. its not easy to hide.
You implied that it would somehow negatively affect me if my account would get banned, it does not. And yes, it's very easy to hide. Maybe you are done derailing the thread and we can get back to topic.
no it would positively affect me
And that is enough to start derailing the thread? I don't think I should be the one getting banned.
I was just responding to you as you said stuff, but of course your right there is no reason to derail. i also don't think you did anything to get banned i wasn't saying that. and i agree we should get back on topic.
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
Why do I even try?
You're talking to one of the most homophobic people on TL, which you can see if you go through his post history. You'd probably be best off not trying.
Going around and insulting people, but it's ok. No one would expect more from you.
On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote: I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting. And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption
Yeah, I think Shinosai is definitely bullying and insulting you. Do you need a hug you poor wittle thing?
Why would it be homophobic if I think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children? Their lifestyle brings with it that they will not have natural children. Adopting some is only about their own personal fulfillment, which should not and is not more important than the future of a child.
Its perhaps not homophobic but your logic is backwards. For that to matter you must first show that heterosexual couples never get children for that reason. And even assuming something like that is quite laughable.
Edit: its also a very general assumption for why people get children.
On August 09 2013 02:10 theodorus12 wrote: I don't see the problem. Their country, their laws. Homosexuals are still allowed to participate in the Olympics, only the annoying parades have been banned and this is a good thing.
Why do I even try?
You're talking to one of the most homophobic people on TL, which you can see if you go through his post history. You'd probably be best off not trying.
Going around and insulting people, but it's ok. No one would expect more from you.
On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote: I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting. And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption
Yeah, I think Shinosai is definitely bullying and insulting you. Do you need a hug you poor wittle thing?
Why would it be homophobic if I think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children? Their lifestyle brings with it that they will not have natural children. Adopting some is only about their own personal fulfillment, which should not and is not more important than the future of a child.
Its perhaps not homophobic but your logic is backwards. For that to matter you must first show that heterosexual couples never get children for that reason. And even assuming something like that is quite laughable.
Edit: its also a very general assumption for why people get children.
Of course it's homophobic. All studies that have shown children of homosexuals being worse off have been thoroughly debunked by professionals. The only reason to deny homosexuals adoption rights is homophobia. How the hell can anyone actually believe that denying homosexual parents adoption rights is anything except homophobic? Think of the children - exactly the same sort of arguments used to deny black parents from adopting white children, or interracial couples.
And just to keep things on topic: Russia has also banned same sex adoption rights.
Well its pretty obvious why someone who isn't familiar with gay family adoption may be put off by it. Probably more to do with ignorance than hate. You guys need to stop throwing those words around in the manner you do. Its counterproductive to your goals.
On August 09 2013 03:43 heliusx wrote: Well its pretty obvious why someone who isn't familiar with gay family adoption may be put off by it. Probably more to do with ignorance than hate. You guys need to stop throwing those words around in the manner you do. Its counterproductive to your goals.
It's also pretty obvious that the person in question isn't just 'ignorant.' He said he finds gay people disgusting. I had a whole list in an earlier post detailing his harmful views. This isn't some innocent person that just happened to be worried about children.
On August 09 2013 03:43 heliusx wrote: Well its pretty obvious why someone who isn't familiar with gay family adoption may be put off by it. Probably more to do with ignorance than hate. You guys need to stop throwing those words around in the manner you do. Its counterproductive to your goals.
It's also pretty obvious that the person in question isn't just 'ignorant.' He said he finds gay people disgusting. I had a whole list in an earlier post detailing his harmful views. This isn't some innocent person that just happened to be worried about children.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
No, that's dumb. You don't support tolerance and open mindedness but also support intolerance and closed mindedness of other people.
What the hell is this new "Your not open minded at all. You are not in support of other people CHOICE repress gays and remove their ability to protest and speak freely. What kind of progressive are you?"(sneer face)
So we have the olympics in Beijing, China, a few years ago. In China, the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one. People get locked up in prison without trial or reason, where they are often mistreated and starved to death or tortured. No one bats an eyelid, and gold medals are passed around.
A few journalists make a note of Russia's political stance on sexuality before the next olympics even start, and everyone loses their f*** mind. People's reactions seem very misplaced in my opinion.
Please. Provide. Evidence.
*sigh*
You should really already know about the Chinese government's track record of human rights violation. It is not new. Nor hidden.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
No, that's dumb. You don't support tolerance and open mindedness but also support intolerance and closed mindedness of other people.
What the hell is this new "Your not open minded at all. You are not in support of other people CHOICE repress gays and remove their ability to protest and speak freely. What kind of progressive are you?"(sneer face)
So we have the olympics in Beijing, China, a few years ago. In China, the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one. People get locked up in prison without trial or reason, where they are often mistreated and starved to death or tortured. No one bats an eyelid, and gold medals are passed around.
A few journalists make a note of Russia's political stance on sexuality before the next olympics even start, and everyone loses their f*** mind. People's reactions seem very misplaced in my opinion.
Please. Provide. Evidence.
*sigh*
You should really already know about the Chinese government's track record of human rights violation. It is not new. Nor hidden.
So... you make a bunch of ridiculous claims then when asked for evidence you link some stuff not relevant to your claims from a single organization widely accused of ideological bias.
The Chinese government doesn't (and didn't) kill children if you have more than one, it used to be that they weren't eligible for state benefits (not taken care of by society), for a while now it's just a fine. The one-child policy is no longer enforced in a lot of areas. It's so obvious from a single post you're in your little shell happily circle-jerking with similarly ignorant people about how bad China is.
On August 08 2013 06:39 ftm wrote: I really don't get why this is a deal-breaker? Isn't gay rights about tolerance and open mindedness? And, if it is, then aren't we supposed to be tolerant and open-minded towards those who don't support gay rights?
RIP in peace post-modern tolerance. *places hand on heart, looks down in earnest sadness*
No, that's dumb. You don't support tolerance and open mindedness but also support intolerance and closed mindedness of other people.
What the hell is this new "Your not open minded at all. You are not in support of other people CHOICE repress gays and remove their ability to protest and speak freely. What kind of progressive are you?"(sneer face)
So we have the olympics in Beijing, China, a few years ago. In China, the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one. People get locked up in prison without trial or reason, where they are often mistreated and starved to death or tortured. No one bats an eyelid, and gold medals are passed around.
A few journalists make a note of Russia's political stance on sexuality before the next olympics even start, and everyone loses their f*** mind. People's reactions seem very misplaced in my opinion.
Please. Provide. Evidence.
*sigh*
You should really already know about the Chinese government's track record of human rights violation. It is not new. Nor hidden.
So... you make a bunch of ridiculous claims then when asked for evidence you link some stuff not relevant to your claims from a single organization widely accused of ideological bias.
The Chinese government doesn't (and didn't) kill children if you have more than one, it used to be that they weren't eligible for state benefits (not taken care of by society), for a while now it's just a fine. The one-child policy is no longer enforced in a lot of areas. It's so obvious from a single post you're in your little shell happily circle-jerking with similarly ignorant people about how bad China is.
Maybe he might be talking about forced abortions, which happens but isn't nation-wide standard practice afaik.
The Chinese government doesn't (and didn't) kill children if you have more than one, it used to be that they weren't eligible for state benefits (not taken care of by society), for a while now it's just a fine. The one-child policy is no longer enforced in a lot of areas. It's so obvious from a single post you're in your little shell happily circle-jerking with similarly ignorant people about how bad China is.
Forced abortion isn't murder? China sure as fuck did kill children if the parents already had more than one, and you dismissing evidence with "oh they're biased hurr durr" doesn't mean jack shit. The one-child policy is still in effect in many areas if your subsequent children are girls, the government still turns a blind eye in many cases to gender-selective abortion and even to just abandoning your baby to die on a riverbank because it had the misfortune to be born a girl.
It's so obvious from a single post you're in your little shell happily circle-jerking with similarly ignorant people about how China is not so bad.
The Chinese government doesn't (and didn't) kill children if you have more than one, it used to be that they weren't eligible for state benefits (not taken care of by society), for a while now it's just a fine. The one-child policy is no longer enforced in a lot of areas. It's so obvious from a single post you're in your little shell happily circle-jerking with similarly ignorant people about how bad China is.
Forced abortion isn't murder? China sure as fuck did kill children if the parents already had more than one, and you dismissing evidence with "oh they're biased hurr durr" doesn't mean jack shit. The one-child policy is still in effect in many areas if your subsequent children are girls, the government still turns a blind eye in many cases to gender-selective abortion and even to just abandoning your baby to die on a riverbank because it had the misfortune to be born a girl.
It's so obvious from a single post you're in your little shell happily circle-jerking with similarly ignorant people about how China is not so bad.
Just a fine that can sometimes be large enough to financially ruin your family.
It's all one big conspiracy against China I'm sure...
lol I love reading your posts. I've seen you pop up in so many random threads with completely different topics, all of which you're extremely confident and have vast amounts of knowledge and deep experience with.
The Chinese government doesn't (and didn't) kill children if you have more than one, it used to be that they weren't eligible for state benefits (not taken care of by society), for a while now it's just a fine. The one-child policy is no longer enforced in a lot of areas. It's so obvious from a single post you're in your little shell happily circle-jerking with similarly ignorant people about how bad China is.
Forced abortion isn't murder? China sure as fuck did kill children if the parents already had more than one, and you dismissing evidence with "oh they're biased hurr durr" doesn't mean jack shit. The one-child policy is still in effect in many areas if your subsequent children are girls, the government still turns a blind eye in many cases to gender-selective abortion and even to just abandoning your baby to die on a riverbank because it had the misfortune to be born a girl.
It's so obvious from a single post you're in your little shell happily circle-jerking with similarly ignorant people about how China is not so bad.
Just a fine that can sometimes be large enough to financially ruin your family.
It's all one big conspiracy against China I'm sure...
Ever wonder why no one gave a shit about abuses in China before they became an international power? Btw, don't repeat what someone said and change it slightly to something that doesn't even make sense lol. Most obvious sign that your jimmies are rustled.
On August 15 2013 01:06 ne4aJIb wrote: It is in IOC rules to obey the laws of the country where Olympics held.
In 1936 countries threatened to boycot the olympics because the host pushed to ban black and Jewish athletes. Germany relented and allowed them to participate but many still chose not to. The result was Jewish persons were pulled off their teams at the last minuet and the Holocaust.
I have known Mr. Gilady since I was a kid; in fact, I grew up with his daughter. He had been supportive in the past regarding our plea for a moment of silence during the Opening Ceremonies, so we arrived with high hopes. Gilady informed us that a moment of silence was not possible because if the IOC had a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes, they would also have to do the same for the Palestinians who died at the Olympics in 1972.
My mother said, "But no Palestinian athletes died."
Gilady responded, "Well, there were Palestinians who died at the 1972 Olympics."
I heard one of the widows say to Gilady, "Are you equating the murder of my husband to the terrorists that killed him?"
Silence.
Edit: I should mention that the first link will probably make you angry.
On August 15 2013 01:06 ne4aJIb wrote: It is in IOC rules to obey the laws of the country where Olympics held.
In 1936 countries threatened to boycot the olympics because the host pushed to ban black and Jewish athletes. Germany relented and allowed them to participate but many still chose not to. The result was Jewish persons were pulled off their teams at the last minuet and the Holocaust.
On August 15 2013 01:06 ne4aJIb wrote: It is in IOC rules to obey the laws of the country where Olympics held.
In 1936 countries threatened to boycot the olympics because the host pushed to ban black and Jewish athletes. Germany relented and allowed them to participate but many still chose not to. The result was Jewish persons were pulled off their teams at the last minuet and the Holocaust.
if that's the plan for Sochi, it is very good.
I didn't follow. Did you call the Holocaust a very good plan?
In the past, if you wanted to have a second child in China, you had to pay a hefty fine. Exceptions: minority groups (not Han Chinese) can have two children. Also, if both husband and wife are only-children, they may have two kids (even if they are Han Chinese).
Now, the law isn't as strictly enforced, but people are still only having one child because it costs so much to raise kids these days.
On August 17 2013 01:47 29 fps wrote: In the past, if you wanted to have a second child in China, you had to pay a hefty fine. Exceptions: minority groups (not Han Chinese) can have two children. Also, if both husband and wife are only-children, they may have two kids (even if they are Han Chinese).
Now, the law isn't as strictly enforced, but people are still only having one child because it costs so much to raise kids these days.
heh so i guess that guy was way off when he said "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one"
On August 17 2013 01:47 29 fps wrote: In the past, if you wanted to have a second child in China, you had to pay a hefty fine. Exceptions: minority groups (not Han Chinese) can have two children. Also, if both husband and wife are only-children, they may have two kids (even if they are Han Chinese).
Now, the law isn't as strictly enforced, but people are still only having one child because it costs so much to raise kids these days.
heh so i guess that guy was way off when he said "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one"
heh so i guess i should pick one random guy off the internet to believe while deriding the other without any particular reason to trust either of them.
On August 17 2013 01:47 29 fps wrote: In the past, if you wanted to have a second child in China, you had to pay a hefty fine. Exceptions: minority groups (not Han Chinese) can have two children. Also, if both husband and wife are only-children, they may have two kids (even if they are Han Chinese).
Now, the law isn't as strictly enforced, but people are still only having one child because it costs so much to raise kids these days.
heh so i guess that guy was way off when he said "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one"
heh so i guess i should pick one random guy off the internet to believe while deriding the other without any particular reason to trust either of them.
Iuno i have pretty good reason to believe the the Chinese government is not murdering babies.
On August 17 2013 01:47 29 fps wrote: In the past, if you wanted to have a second child in China, you had to pay a hefty fine. Exceptions: minority groups (not Han Chinese) can have two children. Also, if both husband and wife are only-children, they may have two kids (even if they are Han Chinese).
Now, the law isn't as strictly enforced, but people are still only having one child because it costs so much to raise kids these days.
heh so i guess that guy was way off when he said "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one"
On August 17 2013 01:47 29 fps wrote: In the past, if you wanted to have a second child in China, you had to pay a hefty fine. Exceptions: minority groups (not Han Chinese) can have two children. Also, if both husband and wife are only-children, they may have two kids (even if they are Han Chinese).
Now, the law isn't as strictly enforced, but people are still only having one child because it costs so much to raise kids these days.
heh so i guess that guy was way off when he said "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one"
heh what do you mean? "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one" is bullshit right?
but forced abortions holy shit that's a crazy level of abuse! what was the original point again? gay activists are more active than women's rights activists? or was it since people didn't complain about that oppression people shouldn't complain about any oppression?
While activists and organizations supportive of gay rights have called for a ban on Russian-made products like Stolichnaya vodka in bars across North America
While activists and organizations supportive of gay rights have called for a ban on Russian-made products like Stolichnaya vodka in bars across North America
Is that not a bit racist for a response?
I'm not sure if you know what racist means but i think you are saying that's xenophobic or nationalist or something.
On August 17 2013 04:14 ComaDose wrote: heh what do you mean? "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one" is bullshit right?
but forced abortions holy shit that's a crazy level of abuse! what was the original point again? gay activists are more active than women's rights activists? or was it since people didn't complain about that oppression people shouldn't complain about any oppression?
Forced abortion is pretty much equal to killing your baby. Assuming a halfway decent amount of time has passed between the fertilization of the egg and the forced abortion, the odds of the baby surviving pregnancy really aren't that bad. Most natural abortions happen really early on.
On August 17 2013 04:14 ComaDose wrote: heh what do you mean? "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one" is bullshit right?
but forced abortions holy shit that's a crazy level of abuse! what was the original point again? gay activists are more active than women's rights activists? or was it since people didn't complain about that oppression people shouldn't complain about any oppression?
Forced abortion is pretty much equal to killing your baby. Assuming a halfway decent amount of time has passed between the fertilization of the egg and the forced abortion, the odds of the baby surviving pregnancy really aren't that bad. Most natural abortions happen really early on.
Forced abortion was never government policy, or done by the government and was always illegal. (as with all things, you might find a few exceptions of course) It's true that the heavy fine and burden of raising more than one child during the times when it was heavily restricted CAUSED some people to have forced abortions, but saying that's the equivalent of government killing your children is intelluctually dishonest.
On August 17 2013 04:14 ComaDose wrote: heh what do you mean? "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one" is bullshit right?
but forced abortions holy shit that's a crazy level of abuse! what was the original point again? gay activists are more active than women's rights activists? or was it since people didn't complain about that oppression people shouldn't complain about any oppression?
Forced abortion is pretty much equal to killing your baby. Assuming a halfway decent amount of time has passed between the fertilization of the egg and the forced abortion, the odds of the baby surviving pregnancy really aren't that bad. Most natural abortions happen really early on.
I see what you are saying. I'm aware of the different views, medical practices, and laws surrounding abortion. There is no doubt china has committed horrible human rights tragedies and that is the reference of the original comment. But there is no way to use that as evidence that if you have more than one child the government will literally kill your children. forced abortion isnt even standard policy its usually just monetary. and the only reason i may have been snarky about it was cause when someone said you need a source for that obviously wrong blanket statement he came back with a "*sigh*" like he was spelling out the obvious before linking to a bunch of stuff that didn't support his statement.
On August 17 2013 04:42 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On August 17 2013 04:14 ComaDose wrote: heh what do you mean? "the government will literally kill your children if you have more than one" is bullshit right?
but forced abortions holy shit that's a crazy level of abuse! what was the original point again? gay activists are more active than women's rights activists? or was it since people didn't complain about that oppression people shouldn't complain about any oppression?
Forced abortion is pretty much equal to killing your baby. Assuming a halfway decent amount of time has passed between the fertilization of the egg and the forced abortion, the odds of the baby surviving pregnancy really aren't that bad. Most natural abortions happen really early on.
Forced abortion was never government policy, or done by the government and was always illegal. (as with all things, you might find a few exceptions of course) It's true that the heavy fine and burden of raising more than one child during the times when it was heavily restricted CAUSED some people to have forced abortions, but saying that's the equivalent of government killing your children is intelluctually dishonest.
I wasn't saying it was government policy. I was under the impression that ComaDose's post heavily implied forced abortions were a significantly lighter offense than killing an infant, and that was the only part I was addressing.
I'm glad they're enforcing these laws. Are you guys not scared of what will happen if gays run rampant? Sooner or later the earth will go extinct because lack of population. Russia has their head screwed on straight, why can't you airheads be the same? What if I want to have sex or marry my dog, will that be something people fight for next? you start with gays, then move on to animals, then people have sex with walls. The puck has to stop somewhere.
On August 19 2013 13:34 insectoidform wrote: I'm glad they're enforcing these laws. Are you guys not scared of what will happen if gays run rampant? Sooner or later the earth will go extinct because lack of population. Russia has their head screwed on straight, why can't you airheads be the same? What if I want to have sex or marry my dog, will that be something people fight for next? you start with gays, then move on to animals, then people have sex with walls. The puck has to stop somewhere.
To paraphrase Louis C.K. "Good, I hope you blow your dog. The fuck does it matter?"
It sucks these dudes are put in a tough spot. Henrik Lundqvist has been pretty outspoken on gay rights, but has been mum on this. You train all your life for two things: to win a Cup, and to win an olympic gold (well not, really since the NHL just started doing that in the 90s but shhh). He's biting his tongue so he doesn't get shut out, arrested, blah blah blah. I understand why he'd wanna do that, but at the same time, he would probably have sway to make an impact by saying it is bullshit. Meh.
Def big time kudos to those who have said fuck it and spoke out anyway though. If anything is gonna get them to cave, it's gonna be hockey players speaking out.
Kseniya Ryzhova, one of the 4 x 400-meter relay winners, said: "The storm of emotions going through us was incredible. And if we, accidentally, while congratulating each other, touched lips, excuse me. We think the whole fuss is more of a sick fantasy not grounded in anything."
Russian women often kiss one another on the cheek when celebrating a happy occasion or even just in greeting.
On August 21 2013 02:19 ComaDose wrote: aww yahoo sports is so weird.
the non blog section of yahoo sports is generally alright. all of the yahoo blogs besides the nhl one puck daddy are somewher between bad and fucking awful. they constantly shit out posts without checking anything, and arent much different than gawker in throwing up misleading headlines for clicks. maggie hendricks is only known because rogan called her a cunt or something. otherwise, she'd just be another random hack.
basically, just dont get your news from dumb blogs. if you do, check the source.
that being said, because of where this news is coming from, i wouldnt be at all surprised if the russian sports head grabbed these two by the ear and said rethink what you told people.
On August 09 2013 03:43 heliusx wrote: Well its pretty obvious why someone who isn't familiar with gay family adoption may be put off by it. Probably more to do with ignorance than hate. You guys need to stop throwing those words around in the manner you do. Its counterproductive to your goals.
On August 19 2013 13:34 insectoidform wrote: I'm glad they're enforcing these laws. Are you guys not scared of what will happen if gays run rampant? Sooner or later the earth will go extinct because lack of population. Russia has their head screwed on straight, why can't you airheads be the same? What if I want to have sex or marry my dog, will that be something people fight for next? you start with gays, then move on to animals, then people have sex with walls. The puck has to stop somewhere.
User was banned for this post.
Gays have been around about as long as humanity it self,, and we've still managed to sex up quite many of us..
Russia has experienced an upsurge in homophobic vigilantism following the introduction of legislation outlawing "homosexual propaganda" in June, gay and lesbian groups say.
The new laws, which have cast a shadow over the Winter Olympics to be held in Sochi early next year, ban the promotion of "non-traditional sexual relations" among minors.
Activists say the legislation has emboldened rightwing groups who use social media to "ambush" gay people, luring them to meetings and then humiliating them on camera – sometimes pouring urine on them. These groups often act against gay teenagers, several of whom told the Guardian that rising homophobia and vigilante activity force them to lead lives of secrecy.
The Russian LGBT Network said the harassment of gay people was being organised nationally for the first time through groups known as Occupy Gerontophilia and Occupy Paedophilia, who claim to be trying to "reform" homosexuals.
This is what happens when you pass legislation singling out a certain part of society as bad... of course the Russian government already turned a blind eye / gave marching orders to anti-gay skinheads to go out and beat up gays even before this law. But you can't just pass a bigoted law and not expect bigoted people to react to it by going after the people they hate.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BqfcLSe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7ivan5h.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BBfqEgu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ycj4OCL.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BR-8y5aCcAAKZoM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/quickfix/5/6/5/203565.jpg?v=1)
![[image loading]](http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/quickfix/5/6/4/203564_v1.jpg)
