Anti-homossexual parade in Warsaw - June.

Remove all ads!

Ok. Although I do have a "problem" with how they act and think, as long as they do not cause a mess it is fine. Of course I hope they stay out of discussing politics and the like...

Calling Catholics fascists seems like the typical punkish - slang, not in regarding to the punk movement - as a s method of creating a mess and provoking a fight.
I fear they were there to create disorder and kill time.

I don't think paying taxes make someone exactly useful. Plus, most of them look like they are still wetting their beds.

No. There is a misunderstading. There are the two opposite ends - they and their leftists supporters, and the people who think like me. They are not going to convince me, just like I am not convincing them either - obviously. I repeat it is weak and nonsensical for me to try to get along with them, and vice-versa. In the other hand, there is the majority caught in between. Don't fool yourself, both themselves are and me are in the minority. The vast majority is somewhat neutral, a tad bit leaning to disliking gays, I might add, but not rabidly anti-homosexual, or against their rights. They can be convinced of the homosexual plea, as long as the methods used do not repulse them.
As a matter of experience, I don't waste my time trying to get along with commies or like-minded people, but when I find neutral people, I don't turn them off on the basis that they - still - don't think like me. Of course if I shave my head and start to beat some people up, I will not be doing a great service to convince the people caught in-between these two ideological positions. That is my point.

Ok, PM me if you want to say any further.

You posed the questions in such a way as to put me in a disadvantageous situation. I was just trying to level the field a bit.

Better safe than sorry? I don't think it justifies. As long as he brings the homosexualism aspect into the table, obviously it is him who has discrimination on his head.
If he was not asked if he is gay, he has no reason to mention it, as this is not - at least apparently - an issue to the hirer.

Futile and uncalled for, in the very least.

As much as a long reply would get you the message, to say Relativism is about subjectivism is enough and more up to the point.

You are mixing things up. The state needs to ensure it's continuation, the goverment doesn't. When the goverment uses state-owned tools, institutions etc for self promotion, or to force upon people given ideology, that is called totalitarism.
As for public education, in my ideal world education should be private, but only as long this is possible. If a population is very poor and can not afford private education, then something has to be done, but ideally I think it should be private, yes.

As I said, I think it should be up to the way each Nation see the role of religion.
---------------------------------------------------

Sure, but what people think is their business. As long as it is undeserved, I don't concern myself.

I guess it depends on how the whole interview is conducted. If there is a hint of any sort, then I can see someone admiting being gay.
I don't think such admittance would make sense in most job interviews though.
Plus, as you say, there are many particular and concrete factors which should be taken into consideration. How the hell can I answer this question like that?

Well, I can not be 100% scientifical on that. I just think my analysis is in the least fair.
It is not absurd, given the circunstances...

Everytime you talk about someone not present he has no way to defend himself. Should people stop bashing Bush here then?

 

Me either, but you never know if they might be insecure enough to need to mention it. It's a bit off-subject for just about any interview. Though you never know who might hit on you if you're handsome enough.

Most likely. But ragging on their looks is a little less effective than pointing out their stupidity. Example:

All catholics are fascists? Well, certainly some (I've met a couple who would've given Hitler a run for his money), but I've also known a great many who wouldn't quite qualify.
-VS.-
Look at dem funny clothes.

Somehow I don't think any of these people are major public figures on the global stage, as Bush is. Government officials are always fair game because of public knowledge; they wouldn't have gotten elected if we hadn't researched them (or had them researched for us). Meanwhile, these people in the picture...wait, do we even know their names?

 

If he did so, he would not only not be hired, but would be hitted squarely in the face.

I had to mention how they looked inferior to the ones marching for family values. Feel free to disagree, but it is all related.

But the idea is the same. Plus, they were parading against what I hold dear, and I was not there to defend my views.

 

It indeed fits the stereotypical image of punks, but I find it more likely they were there to protest against the parade they objected to. I find it hard to believe they were just protesting for protesting's sake. Regardless of their motives (after all, I can't know them), many would agree that an anti-homosexual parade is something to be protested against.

If paying taxes doesn't make one useful to the society...well, not many people do bring anything *else* to the table. It means most people are useless then. What would those people, in your book, have to do to fit the requirement of being useful?

I understand your point now - I got a little caught up in the "nonsensical and weak" part, because that is something I disagree with, and the "neutrals" are not all that neutral. I think one should either 1)try to find some common ground, compromise, "get along", be constructive; or 2) stay away from each other to leave each other in peace and avoid hostilities. To me the first choice is the more admirable one. But in each case hostile confrontations, red-faced shouting matches, and yes, certain kinds of public demonstrations are nonsensical and accomplish nothing. I think an "anti-homosexual parade" accomplishes just as little as a sexually explicit gay-rights parade. Both are preaching to the choir, and generate mostly negative feelings in their opposites, instead of taking steps towards each other.

For many employers the sexual orientation is not an issue, but then again, some are quite intolerant. Some condone open discrimination between workers. If a gay person has had negative experiences with former employers, it only makes sense that they think better safe than sorry. Discrimination is real. Unfair treatment happens all the time. Even though sometimes it is only in one's own head, many times it is not.

And even the girly guy -kind of behavior doesn't warrant discrimination. Of course, if a gay man starts persistently hitting on coworkers, then *he* is out of line and should be punished accordingly.

But not like *that*...

I've been under the impression that relativism is about acknowledging that most things (all?) are subjective. That notion in itself sounds objective to me.

Exactly, the goverment doesn't need to ensure its own continuation. But how are tolerance classes "self promotion" by the government?

Governments forcing ideologies upon people is done all the time in the form of laws and their enforcement. It is done by teaching at schools about the flaws of communism, it is done by promoting democracy. It's just that when an idea that one doesn't *like* is fed from above, people start talking about totalitarian rule.

Ideally I think it should be up to how each *person* sees the role of religion. Isn't hinting that a nation is a unanimous collective in this regard the same thing as the state forcing upon people an ideology? If it's the "nation" that makes the judgement call of what and how should be taught about religion?

 

This is what I think: If someone is protesting against something, the most obvious thing to be assumed is that he cares about what he is doing. As such, he will try the best way to give his message clearly and respectably.
When someone fails to do this - which can only be purposedly - and uses forcedly shocking and abusive methods, it means he does not care for the protest a bit, because if he did, he would be worried about convincing people, not to enrage them. That is why I don't believe the good intentions of these punks and the gays who parade doing obscene and disgusting things. They are there just for the show.

Paying taxes is just the minimal required. Not that I am a big supporter of taxes, don't take me wrong.

How can people in the opposite ends, and who have little regard for their counterparts take steps towards each other?

We are running around circles here. You ackowledge my point but says the gays have a reason to have a defensive stance. I say they do have discrimination to worry about, but this does not justify that they bring sexuality into the table in a job interview, if they are not required to do so. It is uncalled for.

You can't reach objectivism by being subjective. That is ilogical.

Tolerance classes is only the "undercover". There are many things that go beyound that. For instance, I don't like the fact such a stupid and ilegitimate organisation such as the UN gives the directives to these schools. It is a clear violation of the National autonomy of states. To have the UN deciding what schools should be teaching in country X or Y.
Laws are not supposed to force ideologies upon people. Laws are done by and for adults - considering adults take responsability for children's acts it is fair to say laws are done to adults - to regulate and facilitate people's lives. It is a whole different business than "teaching" children when they are still forming their own mindset.

In a way, yes, but this goes perfectly alongside my world view. A homogeneous and cohesive Nation would not have this kind of problem - or at least in a very limited way.
Of course, when you start to mingle people from all ethnicities and cultures together, things get a lot worse.

 

Nah, just being picky. Why does the Catholics' problem with gay lifestyle reside within themselves but gay problems with Catholics are an objective fact? And so on. It's like if gays call you a pig it's good. If you call a gay a pig it's bad.

Nice rhetoric but irrelevant to my paragraph that you were officially addressing. It has nothing to do with your idea that Catholics are responsible for how they make gays feel and how they feel about gays, while gays are responsible for neither feeling anyhow nor making anyone feel anyhow. In short, it's quite a cheerful logic.

Your basic problem is that you mix "offence against humanity" with "believing that homosexual behaviour is perverse" and you start off with labels: "opressed minority" and "haters", also arbitrarily deciding that the only motive to believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral is hate. That's fine for a champion of the gay cause but hardly makes you an impartial judge or anything after that manner.

Trying to be a nuisance is a good enough reason to be slapped on the wrists.

 

Those of us who think that homosexuality isnt immoral are simply at a loss as to what else but hatred might be the cause. Hatred inspired by the belief it is unnatural, offensive? And if hatred is too harsh a word one can always call it resentment, or reluctancy to grant a fellow human being the rights to a full, happy life that others of course deserve. Euphemisms will help you out there.

What could be the cause for attacking others if not hatred? What is the motivation?

 

It's still just a nice talk on the surface but your main argument is that they want to do it very much, so we shouldn't bitch about them doing it. With that kind of logic, no morality will ever make sense.

 

Yup. Stop bitching. Perhaps you have failed to notice it is no longer deemed acceptable by our societies to insult perfectly fine people in our midst by collectively labelling them as sick, depraved or what have you.

It is really none of your business what they do. Just leave them alone. Would work miracles on how SOME of them behave, I guess.
There is no need to make up arguments that hold the pretention of concerns for morality, cause no one gets hurt there. And no need to impose morals you organize your life around on others. To me that comes off as presumptuous.

 

Agreed so far.

Nope. The failure does not necessarily happen on purpose. Many don't even consider shocking methods a failure, because they raise a lot of attention. This scenario of yours is one possibility, but saying that is how it usually goes is going a bit far with the generalizations again.

Sometimes this may be the case, sometimes not. This is basically what I've been saying all along, and we seem to be a bit stuck.

Before you said paying taxes doesn't mean someone is useful, now it's the minimum requirement for it...but never mind. Asking again: could you give some example of doing a bit more than the minimum? What does one have to do to be considered useful to society?

No one said it would be easy. But ceasing to try can only lead to the situation either staying the same or getting worse.

Both sides would have to change, compromise, if even a little. I don't mean people with views like yours would have to get all friendly with gays, but to cut them some slack, try not to get so offended. The raunchy kind of gays would need to be less explicit and obscene, to consider the feelings of conservative people more.

With small steps like that, people might learn to tolerate each other. Not love each other, not befriend each other, but that's really not the idea, the idea is to be civil around each other. It sounds like hippie talk, I know. Both sides are stubborn and utterly convinced of being right. But I don't see this kind of development completely impossible, just very very difficult.

Most definetely. Continuing with the hippie talk, I think the best course of action when a job interviewee tells the interviewer he is gay, would be to look him in the eye and say "So what?"

If there aren't bigotish attitudes flying around at the workplace, tell him that. Civilly. *Then*, if he gets all confrontational about it, send him away. If he's a prick enough to sue you for discrimination, as long as you had real, valid reasons not to hire him, you'll win the case and he pays the bill. (Well, depending on the system.)

The idea is that the notion that everything is subjective, the notion *itself*, is an objective one. And acknowledging that no opinion is an absolute truth, you won't be so hung up on your own opinions either. You'll reach objectivity.

I don't claim to be 100% objective myself. But I try to be as objective as I can.

My personal opinions on the UN aside, it's a collective of countries, not an entirely separate outside force. The UN does not dictate what is taught in the schools of countries that are not *in* the UN and thus take part in making the decisions.

I think it's strange that you don't have a problem with the state regulating and facilitating people's lives, since personal freedom of ideology seems important to you. "By adults and for adults", but those are not the same adults. And being an adult does not always mean one has bothered to take any time to think for oneself, not by a long shot. Adults are not as easily influenced as children, but *very* easily influenced still.

Laws *do* force ideologies on people, such as making it clear to everybody that you can't kill other people. One doesn't have to agree with that ideology, but neither does one have to agree with what ideologies the schools teach.

Isn't it nice when something goes perfectly alongside your world view? No need to protest against the nice principle if it does. And when it doesn't, by all means protest against the unfair principle that allows such things to happen. Even if the principle is the same all along.

Would that theoretic homogenous and cohesive nation consist only of those who think like you do? If so, good for you. If not, well you'd be screwed. Aside from totalitarian systems falsely claiming such, I don't think there ever has been nor ever will be such homogenous and cohesive nations.

 

Dendri, you are still sound as though you were presupposing that everyone agrees with you that it's so obvious that gay behaviour is perfectly fine. The problem is that in some other places you mention the majority is causing a problem. Are you wiser than the majority and an oracle on your own and the majority blind to the obvious, or just can't you decide whether gay rights are the most obvious thing on the planet or the most intricate human invention?

There is a number of other people who do things which are not popular among the majority. Should we unban necrophilia, zoophilia, drugs, public nudity, heavy swearing on the media and a couple of other things? In each case, it's refusing to leave people alone with what they enjoy doing instead of saying that they are perfectly moral and welcome to continue.

Ultimately, you are no less imposing your morals than the majority is if you tell the majority it should stop consider gay sex immoral. Your liberty-based arguments appear no less made up to me than my morality-based ones do to you, rest assured.

 

Where was it I spoke of majorities?
If homosexuality would be perceived as a disorder of some kind by the majority of a given society wouldnt you think that gays receive treatment? Look around. It isnt happening. Not in Europe, not anywhere in the Western World.
Maybe you are the favoured oracle, by any chance, that you can ignore the consensus of our societies like that?

How thoughtful of you to leave the pedophiles out this time. Still, what you mention is harmful in one way or other. Whereas homosexuality is not.
This is as simple as it gets.

Btw, we arent talking about the desecration of our dead, nor about sex between different species. This is about people in love. Let that sink in for a moment, please.

Not at all. I merely take the liberty to step into the way of those who have the nerve of telling others they are sick cause they dont live up to a personal moral code.
Not that I would pressure you to start lobbying for them gays, or do I? Think of others as you wish. Whatever it will tell of you... but that is your decision.

 

As John Stewart put it (loosely)...

Oh my God, same-sex marriage is bad! It's unconscionable! It's ... Wait, they're not going to force us to marry people of the same sex? Ohhhh. Well then what's the fuss about?

Same thing applies to homosexuality in general; if they were trying to make heterosexual sex illegal so that you could only legally have homosexual sex (population control is the only even half-baked reason I can come up with), then you've got a reason to complain.

Otherwise...

 

I agree with the part that on some occurrences - though I think seldom - it is not on purpose that people fail to deliever their message respectably.
However, we should analyse the concrete case at hand. Punkish looking people, calling peaceful Catholics, doing a harmless parade of fascists, is mostly clearly an attempt to shock and offend them, with no other purpose then having a blast.
Dumb people certainly can not grasp the line which separates a pushy, yet respectable protest, from a sheer display of cheap offenses which will only backfire at them. However, there is a difference between dumbness and open provocation.
Maybe you can't see it in that light, because you have no idea how much of an offense is for these families being called fascists.

We are talking about this specific case, and I am extending my reasoning to all the gay parades which display the usual agressive and repulsive behaviour I have been talking about. As for all the rest, I would have to analyse case by case.

Paying taxes is an obligation. That is what I am trying to say.
For instace, paying taxes and being a drunkard who brings havoc to the streets on saturday night is hardly usefulness.

It does sound hippie to me, and I hate everything hippie.
This does not goes along my world view, and I am not interested in "doing my part" to achieve that.

You see, there is a possibility that his admittance will lead to a sue of his part, depending on my answer, which can be as harmless as a "so what?". I can't see why he can not stay shut and prevent all this...

But that is not the idea. It goes like that: "Your opinion is as valid as mine is, you don't possess the whole truth". With this reasoning we can never reach an objective conclusion, because one will always say his take is as relevant as everyone's else, which is just silly and counter productive.

Not true. The UN wants to have a say in all Nations business. Their idea is one world goverment.
The UN is an outside force. It is basically a bunch of intellectuals - leftists, or simply NWO agents if you preffer - burecrauts who believe to hold the moral high ground to determine the course of action of all Nation around the globe, and on the lives of everyone.
Their idea to solve problems is always to create a new "agency", paying bureacrauts 30.000 USD a month to meddle even more on the lives of people and countries. Every new agency ensues even more control and bureacracy.
It is not a surprise the US is the biggest opposer of the UN, which only shows the UN is an outside force.

Sorry, but this is pure sophism. You make it sound as if I am supporting some kind of anarchist goverment, which I never did.
It is most obvious no state can exist without laws, which does not mean the goverment should expand it's attributions to the most private aspects of families lives, such as children's upbringing.
Laws should be about bringing security and some degree of previse to people's inter-relationship. There is a long way between promulgating laws and enforcing ideology upon people.

If you think it is the same thing to ban murdering and to enforce some political agenda on schools, that is all I need to know about you...

So let me make it more clear. My country is an Orthodox Christian Nation. It is not a cesspool of religions. That is homogeneity. Our schools should be grounded on Russian cultural values and foundations, which happen to be Orthodox Christian. We don't need schools to be teaching religious tolerance of how religion is a backward thing.
This is not a violation of people's freedom, much less totalitarism, because such is the will of the people, who give their own children religious education back at home anyway.
--------------------------------------------------

You know, there is that joke which goes something like "homosexualism used to be banned, then it started to be accepted, nowadays it is promoted. I better live this country before it becomes mandatory". Loosely, that is the joke.

 

Because gays are. It's biological. It is morally false to punish or deny people something for what they cannot change.

Who said I was to be objective?

Aside from not having the same opinion, I don't have a real problem with someone who thinks gay people are perverse. I don't really have a problem with a demonstration against homosexualism.

But I have a problem with people who think that gays should be quiet and stop being so offensive in public. That's undemocratic.

Trying to be a nuisance is sometimes necessary for getting media coverage. As long as they don't get violent, you have to bear with it. As we have to bear with anti-gay demonstrations.

 

I've never been accused of being fascist, so no, I don't *quite* know how it feels. But as peaceful as this parade was, it must be remembered it was quite offensive to gay people.

Well, that's at least something. But from what I've seen of your posts, I won't hold my breath about that happening.

Agreed there. But you still haven't given an example of being useful.

And it is thinking like that that makes sure the situation can only stay the same or get worse.

Now you're just being unnecessarily confrontational. With being an a-hole, just like with criminal prosecution, people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. No need to display an attitude unless he throws some at you. The admittance in itself is not attitude, unless made in a very confrontational manner.

The objective conclusion with these gay issues for example, would be that there is no objective conclusion as to what is offensive. There are only opinions, and all we can do is try to fit them together in such a way as to keep everybody safe and equal.

Oh man. You could have just flung this NWO card at me from the start, and I wouldn't have bothered arguing with you. Fine, have your world conspiracies. I'll still try to respond the rest of your post.

I'm not suggesting you support anarchism. I just see a contradiction in not allowing ideas to be put into people's heads from above, yet allowing things like religious teaching and law enforcement as long as you *agree* with what the ideas from above are.

I don't think it's the same. I don't see things like tolerance classes as enforcing a political agenda in schools, any more than would I consider teaching tolerance towards different races, or equality between genders, to be political propaganda.

I've no trouble believing that a *majority* in your country has those kind of values, but there are minorities in every country.

 

Let me remind of you of Polish resistance to nazi/fascism, which is what I was getting at...

I thought you were against generalisations?

My ideas of a useful citzen is in the context of a Nationalistic Nation, and I do not want to bother you with my hateful and bigoted ideology. You could always check out other hateful thinkers such as Dostoievsky, who inspired me greatly.

I abide to the notion that you must eliminate the problem, instead of absorving it, which only ensues that you become part of the problem yourself.

The admittance is not in itself an attitude - although there is a good change that it might be - but it is uncalled for and nonsensical.
It is not necessary, and as such, I would be doubtful of his motivations.

Who says that is the objective conclusion? I claim my relativist right to proclaim this conclusion empty and a mere interpretation.

Yes, just claim it is a nutball conspiracy instead of addressing the events concerning it.
As they say, the greatest strategy of the devil is to make people think he does not exist.

It is not me who agress. It is a matter of historical and cultural heritage and roots.
Plus, laws are much more objective than the schooling brainwashing.

Parents send their children to school to learn the basics of maths, physics, history, literature etc - or at least they used to. Now the children go to schools to learn what UN bureacrats think they should be learning.

Those minorities should know they are just that, minorities, and the fidelty of the Russian state is to the Russian people.
As for the non-religious Russians, they should be respected fully, but the Orthodox nature of Russian life - which manifests in all aspects of Russian society/culture, including education - should not adapt itself to better suit them. As it is now, they won't have a hard time living at their full potential, which is all they can expect and demand.

 

Yeah, I am. It's not a generalization in the typical sense of the word to speculate one person's future behavior based on what that one person has said, but a bit unfair, maybe. A generalization would be, for example, to speculate how Russians behave based only on what you have said.

That is exactly what I'm planning to do. If the predicted events do happen some day, well pi$$ on my back and tell me it's raining, but until then I'm sure you'll let me have my fun. Sorry, but I have some friends who believe in that stuff, I've heard their arguments, and that is enough for me for now.

I always appreciate a nice flair of sarcasm. But you're right in that I'm not big on nationalistic thinking, so maybe it's better not to go there right now.

I don't think the problem in this case can really be eliminated by any legitimate means.

Yes, that is the pitfall of relativism. If everything is subjective, relativism itself must be just an opinion too. I've read some debate on this. But applying the basic ideas to practice, in my mind, means making compromises when ideologies clash. You've stated time and again you don't believe in compromises, I know.

Yes they are, but the principle is much the same. I don't compare laws against murder with tolerance classes because the ideas are similar, but because the process is similar. And you've already said you don't have a problem with schools teaching views that you agree on. So it's not so much the brainwashing, but the contents of it.

There was a time when most schools taught religion quite aggressively. I just don't see the harm in learning not to hate something that isn't harmful, damaging, dangerous, contagious or against the law. After all, even with the tolerance classes nobody's being taught or encouraged to *be* gay, it's only about accepting them. Which (at least in the US where those classes took place iirc) goes in accordance with the laws; discrimination is illegal.

Not even slightly, to provide them an alternative for, say, getting taught religion at schools? Something so small as that kids with non-Orthodox parents wouldn't have to participate in such lessons?

 

Maybe not in the typical sense, but contraditory to what you preach.

It is happening; it is undeniable. If those events might be atributed to a world conspiracy, it is debatle, but the occurrances are just that for anyone to see.

Lucky me legitimancy is a relative concept, so it matters not.

Haha, did I? Maybe you are being sarcastic, or then maybe you are not very sharp. Compromise is the foundation of my world view.
I can't see how someone might misunderstand my views so much...

Not views that I agree with, but views which are sensical and have a historical/cultural legitimancy to them.
Regardless, the process is distinct enough. Laws are an objective reality that regulates the adult world. Ideological public schooling is not.

Religion teaches tolerance. These tolerance classes are nothing more than stupid brainwashing, teaching children to look down on their heritage and culture for the sake of "diversity". Of course you might claim it is just a harmless attempt to produce better understanding between people, but I don't buy that.
These classes are based upon the concept of "critical pedagogy", which is an educational method theorized by commies.

I thought you were pro integration? How are we going to integrate non-Russians if they refuse to take classes which are primal to the condition of being Russian?

 

Since when?

Yeah, it's remarkable that these tolerance classes emphazise what children are naturally capable of: Not to judge a human being for what they are, only for what they do.

Children have no prejudices to begin with. They only learn them from their parents. Or in school.