Flying Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Latest studies show that 75% of Russians do not approve of homosexuality. And in neighboring Ukraine, the parliament scuppered its chances of visa-free travel to most EU nations by blocking legislation that would have banned discrimination against gays in the workplace. What is your opinion as to why Russians and Ukrainians disapprove of homosexuality ?
Eternal Growth Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Child abuse Children born in Russia are abused by adults whenever they deviate from imposed ideas about gender. They internalise this abuse and become homophobic, transphobic etc. adults.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Are the Russians inherently evil for disapproving of consensual adult incest? I mean, come on, the perversity boat has sailed and it's only a matter of time before it reaches its final destination. Could it be Russians disapprove of it because they have a more traditional, conservative culture that is more influenced by Orthodoxy and that has not been wholly contaminated by the decadent West? I wonder what their television programming is like. 3
AccuTron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Uhh, wild guess, is it the idea that f--ing a man's arse is disgusting to most people? (Yes I'm aware of huge female anal porn offerings, but it's a big world and all things are possible. And of use of force by the state to forbid it, etc. Which is to say, it's a cluttered topic. The question was why it is, not is it fair.) 1 1
Flying Posted November 15, 2015 Author Posted November 15, 2015 Child abuse Thats right. Because there is logical reasons to be concerned with some of the connections between homosexuality and pedophilia. I was just wondering if some people in the west are prepared to say that Russians are evil for not seeing it their way. 3
dsayers Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 The titular question is hugely uninformed. "Russians" is collectivizing people based on who claims ownership over them, which cannot lead to any factual consideration. OP confesses that we're not talking about 100%, so collectivizing is inherently inaccurate. "Inherently evil" is a contradiction in concepts. If something is not a choice, we cannot assign a moral consideration to it. Morality refers to behaviors not people anyways. "Disapproving" refers to a preference, not a behavior. I caution others against participation in this thread. As you can see in this thread, OP has an unwillingness to define terms, differentiate against preferences and behaviors, and has an undisclosed predisposition regarding homosexuality and what he calls pedophilia. Just in case somebody was wondering why suddenly pedophilia is on the tables when Russians and homosexuality was the topic. 2
MrCapitalism Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 So where's the initiation of force? Some people like screwing other people of the same sex, 75% of Russians, "don't like that." Where's the initiation of force?
Donnadogsoth Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 So where's the initiation of force? Some people like screwing other people of the same sex, 75% of Russians, "don't like that." Where's the initiation of force? It all comes down to teaching buggery in school. They've got to groom the next generation's crop of queers which they hope will be larger than the last. Don't underestimate the homosexual desire to convert straights. How would you feel if you were 2% of the population, surrounded by luscious specimens who had no interest in you, and who in many cases felt repulsed by your behaviour? 6
neeeel Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 It all comes down to teaching buggery in school. They've got to groom the next generation's crop of queers which they hope will be larger than the last. Don't underestimate the homosexual desire to convert straights. How would you feel if you were 2% of the population, surrounded by luscious specimens who had no interest in you, and in many cases felt repulsed by your behaviour? Damn, I musta missed that class when I was in school. 2
AccuTron Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 So where's the initiation of force? Some people like screwing other people of the same sex, 75% of Russians, "don't like that." Where's the initiation of force? Whoops, clumsy edit on my part made it sound backwards...I went back and fixed it. It was an impulse answer, and bad editing aside, we are told that the first impulse answer is probably the right answer to a test question. Now I have to find out what I meant. A whole range of aspects exist, about injustice, hatred, ignorance, or as someone here posted, maybe child abuse, etc., that have been covered a jillion times over the years. I contribute nothing there. But there's another aspect. I am reminded of the history of cigarettes. Sir Walter Raleigh brought ciggies back to England in kit form centuries ago. (My sources for some of this are old comedy skits.) White people and ciggies made it back over here later, and it became established by the 20th century that people just had a right to smoke, "by golly and tax receipts too." It was not until much later and much hooha that rules forbid ciggies in restaurants, etc. There was a whole bunch of stunk up clothes, homes, cars, restaurants, etc. in between, and many people glad to see ciggie smoke put on a leash. What if Sir Walter had just discovered ciggies last year? It would be seen as nonsense that laws should allow such a new and stinky thing to be allowed in stores, etc. (We'll have to make some odd assumptions here about why there'd be laws in the first place if no ciggies, but I leave that to science fiction writers.) So, do many of the Russ and Ukrainians in question view it that way? Like, "Why on Earth would you want to allow such a thing as <insert usable phrase for what we're talking about>?" That wouldn't arise from hate, it would just be a big "Huh? Why would you want to?" Probably a real minimum of actual thought. We're talking about a poll here, not a conversation with Aristotle.
Flying Posted November 16, 2015 Author Posted November 16, 2015 So where's the initiation of force? Some people like screwing other people of the same sex, 75% of Russians, "don't like that." Where's the initiation of force? I will answer that. But why don't you think they don't like it ?
MrCapitalism Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 How would you feel if you were 2% of the population, surrounded by luscious specimens who had no interest in you, and in many cases felt repulsed by your behaviour? ...A lot of us are anarchists and atheists, I'm pretty sure we know exactly what that lifestyle is like. Again, if these people aren't using force against my body or my property, what do I care what they think? Fundamentally they would giving me more respect than most people give each other in western society. I will answer that. But you chose not to.
AynRand Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 But you chose not to. I laughed so hard when I read that. Literally this was my exact thought when I read Flyings post. Why would you go out of your way to say your going to answer something then not answer the actual question.
dsayers Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Why would you go out of your way to say your going to answer something then not answer the actual question. A disarming poisoning of the well. That's what's so valuable about the "not an argument" approach. Don't tell me you're going to (insert behavior here), SHOW ME. Wish my first post in the topic would go live. Was typed yesterday and I've never done anything to indicate I need censorship or approval here.
st434u Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 The breakdown of civilization has a tendency to be preceded, among other things, by the acceptance of deviant and alternative lifestyles that run contrary to family values as commonplace or even desirable. It happened in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece. I think Russia will be more prosperous in the 21st century than the West, and the lack of anti-discrimination laws is just one of the very many reasons why. Remember, discrimination simply means: "Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." To be opposed to discrimination is to be opposed to private property, reason, preference, peace, profit, progress, civilization... and even life itself. Furthermore, private property's most fundamental principle is the recognition of the legitimacy of the owner choosing (and enforcing) who may and who may not enter and make use of their property, and on what terms. Along with the rest of the socialists, the "gay's rights" espousers claim all they want is freedom, but they're under the delusion that freedom means free stuff, meaning someone else has to be enslaved and robbed in order to provide them with their "freedom". 1
Eternal Growth Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 The breakdown of civilization has a tendency to be preceded, among other things, by the acceptance of deviant and alternative lifestyles that run contrary to family values as commonplace or even desirable. It happened in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece. Hasty generalisation fallacy. Furthermore, if you're against "deviant and alternative lifestyles" (the horror!), why are you posting on a website that is specifically devoted to "personal and political freedom"? Along with the rest of the socialists, the "gay's rights" espousers claim all they want is freedom, but they're under the delusion that freedom means free stuff, meaning someone else has to be enslaved and robbed in order to provide them with their "freedom". There are libertarian LGBT people who have no interest in anti-discrimination laws or "free stuff". Socialism and LGBT equality under the law are completely separate issues.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Hasty generalisation fallacy. Furthermore, if you're against "deviant and alternative lifestyles" (the horror!), why are you posting on a website that is specifically devoted to "personal and political freedom"? There are libertarian LGBT people who have no interest in anti-discrimination laws or "free stuff". Socialism and LGBT equality under the law are completely separate issues. Wait, I thought "the law" is "socialism" according to here. If you're appealing to the law, you believe in statism, which is always a lesser or greater form of socialism, no? So, LGBT&c activists are seeking for socialist leverage for their status, which in a free society would be determined by private actors subject to whim and vox populi. Damn, I musta missed that class when I was in school. Google "fistgate," you deprived kid. EDIT: Wow, truth is no defense here, huh? Instead of saying what is wrong with my statements, someone anonymously pisses on my shoes for telling the truth. Viva vox populi! 1 2
MrCapitalism Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Wait, I thought "the law" is "socialism" according to here. If you're appealing to the law, you believe in statism, which is always a lesser or greater form of socialism, no?
Donnadogsoth Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (1) You steal a bushel of radishes from my garden. I contact my DRO and, conveniently, you are also a member. The DRO contract prohibits theft. In other words, the DRO contract contains a law. (2) I wonder what the Ancap community will say on the day when government is dissolved, and the entire population freely and voluntarily elects to sign a lifetime social contract enshrining a single DRO that operates according to principles of liberal democracy. 2
dsayers Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (1) You steal a bushel of radishes from my garden. I contact my DRO and, conveniently, you are also a member. The DRO contract prohibits theft. In other words, the DRO contract contains a law. Love making doesn't contain rape. They are distinctive based on the presence of consent or lack thereof. Contract denotes voluntary participation (consent) while law does not.
MrCapitalism Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I think we're getting off track from the question of the ethics of Russians having an opinion.
AccuTron Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 EDIT: Wow, truth is no defense here, huh? Instead of saying what is wrong with my statements, someone anonymously pisses on my shoes for telling the truth. Viva vox populi! Got yer back covered...
Donnadogsoth Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Love making doesn't contain rape. They are distinctive based on the presence of consent or lack thereof. Contract denotes voluntary participation (consent) while law does not. And doesn't the implicit or explicit contract allowing lovemaking to proceed, contain a law that prohibits rape?
rosencrantz Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 It happened in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece. Which Roman Empire do you mean? The Republic or the Imperial one? Which Greece do you mean? Athens, Sparta... I am sure you have some historical data that has not been considered yet. Remember, discrimination simply means: "Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." Nobody uses this etymology anymore. To be opposed to discrimination is to be opposed to private property, reason, preference, peace, profit, progress, civilization... and even life itself. That slope is so slippery that I had to remove soap from my eyes while reading it. Along with the rest of the socialists, the "gay's rights" espousers claim all they want is freedom, but they're under the delusion that freedom means free stuff, meaning someone else has to be enslaved and robbed in order to provide them with their "freedom". Saying so doesn't make it so.
WasatchMan Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Your sexual opinions are aesthetic choices, not moral, making it only evil to initiate force on ANY side of the issue. Therefore, the only evil in the Russian situation is around those who support/vote for/enforce laws that are enforced against gays because of this fact - the people with just opinions may be ill-advised, but they are not acting evil.
dsayers Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 And doesn't the implicit or explicit contract allowing lovemaking to proceed, contain a law that prohibits rape? You said this in direct response to my claim that law doesn't denote voluntary participation. Until you address that, I have no way of identifying with certainty where the communications disconnect is occurring. Because I read this question (in the context of this conversation) as: Once somebody consents, isn't a lack of consent inflicted upon them? Which makes no sense. Also, if you're going to continue to use law in that context, you can't refer to theft, assault, rape, and murder. Because with these behaviors, the perpetrator is flat out telling you they are violating property rights by asserting that they are valid and invalid simultaneously. To take something that is obviously a violation and tack on an arbitrary conclusion that it is a violation, you're just obfuscating the analysis. Not usually the effort of somebody who has truth in mind.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 You said this in direct response to my claim that law doesn't denote voluntary participation. Until you address that, I have no way of identifying with certainty where the communications disconnect is occurring. Because I read this question (in the context of this conversation) as: Once somebody consents, isn't a lack of consent inflicted upon them? Which makes no sense. Also, if you're going to continue to use law in that context, you can't refer to theft, assault, rape, and murder. Because with these behaviors, the perpetrator is flat out telling you they are violating property rights by asserting that they are valid and invalid simultaneously. To take something that is obviously a violation and tack on an arbitrary conclusion that it is a violation, you're just obfuscating the analysis. Not usually the effort of somebody who has truth in mind. I don't understand you, dsayers. If there is a contract in place, that contract has rules, and those rules are laws by another name. Outside of an hermitage, there is no escaping laws in life, whether they are installed by the state or by contract.
dsayers Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 If there is a contract in place, that contract has rules, and those rules are laws by another name. Outside of an hermitage, there is no escaping laws in life, whether they are installed by the state or by contract. "If an agreement to have sex is in place, that agreement is voluntary, and that consent is rape by another name. Outside of an hermitage, there is no escaping rape, whether it is perpetrated by the State or by voluntary love-making." I now see where the communications disconnect is. I specifically pointed out the way consent can change a behavior to its polar opposite. I even doubled back to this the first time you tried to ignore it. It's funny because I usually point out that laws cannot be man-made and that people call commands backed by threats of violence "laws" to poison the well that they cannot be questioned or escaped just to avoid this very problem. Here, one of the few times I decide to meet somebody (you) by way of the erroneous standard you've put forth, you demonstrate the very danger of not being precise with your language (and therefore imprecise with your thoughts). If you'd like to continue to have a conversation with me, it will have to be a COnversation WITH ME. This means not continuing on as if the very challenge that reveals your thinking error was never made. Twice. You're saying that you're a valid participation in this exchange while I am not, despite the fact that you're replying confirms that I am. Have some integrity please.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 "If an agreement to have sex is in place, that agreement is voluntary, and that consent is rape by another name. Outside of an hermitage, there is no escaping rape, whether it is perpetrated by the State or by voluntary love-making." I now see where the communications disconnect is. I specifically pointed out the way consent can change a behavior to its polar opposite. I even doubled back to this the first time you tried to ignore it. It's funny because I usually point out that laws cannot be man-made and that people call commands backed by threats of violence "laws" to poison the well that they cannot be questioned or escaped just to avoid this very problem. Here, one of the few times I decide to meet somebody (you) by way of the erroneous standard you've put forth, you demonstrate the very danger of not being precise with your language (and therefore imprecise with your thoughts). If you'd like to continue to have a conversation with me, it will have to be a COnversation WITH ME. This means not continuing on as if the very challenge that reveals your thinking error was never made. Twice. You're saying that you're a valid participation in this exchange while I am not, despite the fact that you're replying confirms that I am. Have some integrity please. So, contracts don't have rules? A contract to sleep with someone doesn't have the implicit or explicit rule that rape should not occur? I'm confused. You're very confusing.
dsayers Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Consent is not me. Your confusion comes from consent. You continue to conflate words that indicate consent with words that dispense with consent. I can't keep pointing this out. There's nothing confusing about my post that said "Love making doesn't contain rape. They are distinctive based on the presence of consent or lack thereof. Contract denotes voluntary participation (consent) while law does not." If I'm wrong about this, then you'll have no problem showing me where. Just as I've been able to show you how you're almost obliviously holding a blind spot for consent.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Consent is not me. Your confusion comes from consent. You continue to conflate words that indicate consent with words that dispense with consent. I can't keep pointing this out. There's nothing confusing about my post that said "Love making doesn't contain rape. They are distinctive based on the presence of consent or lack thereof. Contract denotes voluntary participation (consent) while law does not." If I'm wrong about this, then you'll have no problem showing me where. Just as I've been able to show you how you're almost obliviously holding a blind spot for consent. I look forward to the day everyone in America voluntarily signs a lifetime social contract that installs a single DRO that operates according to liberal democratic principles thus recreating the America we know and love, except without all those pesky laws.
Spaceballs Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 As far as I know, in a general sense, people have been bullying minorities for ever. Ugliness, handicap, low IQ, high IQ, etc. are always going to be marginalized. 1
dsayers Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 I look forward to the day everyone in America voluntarily signs a lifetime social contract that installs a single DRO that operates according to liberal democratic principles thus recreating the America we know and love, except without all those pesky laws. Why would I need to sign a contract? As long as I'm not stealing, assaulting, raping, or murdering, why do you want a hand in whatever I choose to do? Why do you only want this for Americans? Why would you want to recreate defective technology (think Chernobyl) instead of upgrading to superior technology? How does this deflection of yours bring you closer the irreconcilability of consent and not consent? 1
Donnadogsoth Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 Why would I need to sign a contract? As long as I'm not stealing, assaulting, raping, or murdering, why do you want a hand in whatever I choose to do? Why do you only want this for Americans? Why would you want to recreate defective technology (think Chernobyl) instead of upgrading to superior technology? How does this deflection of yours bring you closer the irreconcilability of consent and not consent? (1) Are you saying such a social contract as I describe would be illegitimate? (2) What is the capital DRO that is the court of final appeal when two disputing parties cannot reach agreement any other way--e.g., they both have competing DRO's who do not have a mutual contract with a third, DRO-serving DRO? I want to know what the solution is to dispute resolution that doesn't involve violent authoritarianism. Really, I'm all ears, good sir.
dsayers Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 (1) Are you saying such a social contract as I describe would be illegitimate? (2) What is the capital DRO that is the court of final appeal when two disputing parties cannot reach agreement any other way--e.g., they both have competing DRO's who do not have a mutual contract with a third, DRO-serving DRO? I want to know what the solution is to dispute resolution that doesn't involve violent authoritarianism. Really, I'm all ears, good sir. I asked you five questions and this answered none of them. I also acknowledged your deflection, so I don't think reacting with more deflection is productive as you had no expectation that it would go down.
Recommended Posts