NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6695913.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6696329.stm

Does the Moscow Mayor have any justification in banning the protest other than religious beliefs? Should the police give more protection to the protesters? because currently it looks like they are doing bugger all and letting them be beaten up by anti-gay protesters. Thoughts?

looks like they are doing bugger all

And the award for the most inappropriate use of language goes to... :p

Its Russia...there is NO protection

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42976000/jpg/_42976511_tatchell203bafp.jpg

Thats one hell of a nipple cripple.

well we are looking at the nation that wanted to ban the Salvation army for being a paramilitary organization

edit: and I wish I had been there even if I'd of ended up with my arse handed to me by a Russian CHAV (presumably 'Crack House And Violence' in this case)

'Tis Russia. "Rights" is an unknown word.

And the award for the most inappropriate use of language goes to... :p

:D I hadn't noticed that :p

my first thought on reading the story was "is there no right to peaceable assembly in Russia then?" because seeing as homosexuality is legal in Russia there can be no other justification for banning such a march. the comments from the police chief and the mayor seem to suggest that while it might be legal the powers that be simply don't see it that way. properly fucked up i say.

my first thought on reading the story was "is there no right to peaceable assembly in Russia then?" because seeing as homosexuality is legal in Russia there can be no other justification for banning such a march. the comments from the police chief and the mayor seem to suggest that while it might be legal the powers that be simply don't see it that way. properly fucked up i say.

Some are more equal than others...am I way off base?

In Soviet Rus-



No, not this time.

In Soviet Russia, protests are for things the Party is already opposed to.


I love my timing.

I lol'd heartily at the inappropriate usage of Soviet Russia here. The correct format would in fact be.

'In the United States, people have gay rights parades. In Soviet Russia, gay rights parade you!

Some are more equal than others...am I way off base?

quarter of a century too late perhaps. now there is no pretence to equality.

I lol'd heartily at the inappropriate usage of Soviet Russia here. The correct format would in fact be.

'In the United States, people have gay rights parades. In Soviet Russia, gay rights parade you!

Thank you for pointing that out. Ifreann definitely butchered his.

Thank you for pointing that out. Ifreann definitely butchered his.

In Soviet Russia, Russian Reversal butchers you!

In Soviet Russia, Russian Reversal butchers you!

Much better.

What was the point of only writing "Gay Rights" in English and the rest in Russian?

What was the point of only writing "Gay Rights" in English and the rest in Russian?

So we'd understand it.

In Soviet Russia, executive power is used passively in order to allow morally conscious elements of society to prevent perverted and nihilistic protesters from espousing their radical doctrine and brainwashing susceptible children.

Did I get the format right?

What was the point of only writing "Gay Rights" in English and the rest in Russian?

my moneys on he was meant to go to a bilingual rally but got confused :p

In Soviet Russia, executive power is used passively in order to allow morally conscious elements of society to prevent perverted and nihilistic protesters from espousing their radical doctrine and brainwashing susceptible children.


Hear hear!

In Soviet Russia, executive power is used passively in order to allow morally conscious elements of society to prevent perverted and nihilistic protesters from espousing their radical doctrine and brainwashing susceptible children.

Did I get the format right?

-Too long
-No reversal

Nope, not at all.

Here's a good one:

In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.

or, for a joke response rather than something about the US's government being controlled by commerce:

In Soviet Russia, freedoms enjoy YOU!

In Soviet Russia, executive power is used passively in order to allow morally conscious elements of society to prevent perverted and nihilistic protesters from espousing their radical doctrine and brainwashing susceptible children.

Did I get the format right?

Yes, because the right not to be beaten by an angry mob when marching peacefully equals brainwashing children. Suuuure.

Here, allow me to demonstrate mathematically:

Homosexuality =/= doctrine
Homosexuality =/= lifestyle
Homosexuality =/= choice
Homosexuality =/= infectious
Homosexuality =/= perverted
Homosexuality == falling in love and being attracted to humans of the same gender


Homophobia =/= being morally conscious
Homophobia =/= acceptable
Homophobia == being retarded and hateful

-Too long
-No reversal

Nope, not at all.

Here's a good one:
In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.


or, for a joke response rather than something about the US's government being controlled by commerce:
In Soviet Russia, freedoms enjoy YOU!

Nope, you always need the YOU! at the end. Always always always. Trust me, I'm an expert on this kind of stuff.

Nope, you always need the YOU! at the end. Always always always. Trust me, I'm an expert on this kind of stuff.

That particular one is not in proper context. The ones w/o the "YOU!" work, but only in proper context.

Nope, you always need the YOU! at the end. Always always always. Trust me, I'm an expert on this kind of stuff.

In Soviet Russia, stuff is expert on this kind of YOU!

At least Right Said Fred showed up.

In Soviet Russia, stuff is expert on this kind of YOU!

umm... close.

Try this:

In Soviet Russia, this kind of stuff is expert on YOU!

The former has bad euphony.

umm... close.

Try this:



The former has bad euphony.

Pfft, I like my way, euphony be damned.

Homosexuality =/= doctrine

No, but the concept that homo-sexuals should have the same rights as normal people is a doctrine.

Homosexuality =/= perverted

Anything that runs contrary to God's will is perverted; this includes homo-sexual behavior.

Homophobia =/= being morally conscious

Indeed; homophobia (the fear of homo-sexuals) is wrong. One should afford homo-sexuals the same privileges as everyone else. However, one should also campaign against the morally abhorrent viewpoint of homo-sexuals and seek to prevent young minds from being contaminated with their filth.

In Soviet Russia, executive power is used passively in order to allow morally conscious elements of society to prevent perverted and nihilistic protesters from espousing their radical doctrine and brainwashing susceptible children.

That is: "In free, democratic, capitalist Russia, disgusting bigoted scum attack innocent people, and the police side with the disgusting bigoted scum."

"Nihilism" seems more the domain of the people who want to deny the equality and dignity of other human beings. And "perversion" the domain of those who want others to suppress their natural selves for an incoherent and morally bankrupt conception of sexual purity.

Anything that runs contrary to God's will is perverted

Why on Earth should I or anyone else care what God wills?

I will that God shut the fuck up if He has a problem with same-sex attraction... why should we give up something that's so much fun?

No, but the concept that homo-sexuals should have the same rights as normal people is a doctrine.


Do you know what doctorine is?


Anything that runs contrary to God's will is perverted; this includes homo-sexual behavior.


So what if you think it's perveted? How the fuck could this matter in the slightest?


one should also campaign against the morally abhorrent viewpoint of homo-sexuals

What viewpoints?

It's a sad thing to see... It really is. Neo nazis can protest, but not gay rights activists.

Bloody fascists! I don't know what else to say.. It's sad.

No, but the concept that homo-sexuals should have the same rights as normal people is a doctrine.

No, it's common sense.


Anything that runs contrary to God's will is perverted; this includes homo-sexual behavior.

My God doesn't give a damn who falls in love with who. Don't shove your religious beliefs down everyone else's throat. Nobody agress on what might or might not be God's will, and religion has no place in a discussion about human rights and legal dispositions.


Indeed; homophobia (the fear of homo-sexuals) is wrong. One should afford homo-sexuals the same privileges as everyone else. However, one should also campaign against the morally abhorrent viewpoint of homo-sexuals and seek to prevent young minds from being contaminated with their filth.
Young minds aren't contaminated by anything. One does not choose one's sexual orientation, and whether or not kinds are aware that gays exist, this will not change their inherant straightness/gayness.

Your language is extremely offensive to homosexuals. I ask that you keep clear form being a judgemental prick in your choice of wors.

Young minds aren't contaminated by anything.

Young minds are contaminated by homophobia (and other kinds of bigotry) all the time.

Yes, because the right not to be beaten by an angry mob when marching peacefully equals brainwashing children. Suuuure.

Here, allow me to demonstrate mathematically:

Homophobia =/= being morally conscious
Homophobia =/= acceptable
Homophobia == being retarded and hateful

Take the test and find out how homophobic you are. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html

50 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."

In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48. This is not conclusive, however. Dr. Adams, the researcher who helped develop this scale, writes that "a major difficulty of this area of research is in defining and measuring homophobia." Elsewhere, he cautions: Since there is no universally accepted definition of homophobia, the scales currently in use may not measure all aspects of homophobia.

In Soviet Russia, executive power is used passively in order to allow morally conscious elements of society to prevent perverted and nihilistic protesters from espousing their radical doctrine and brainwashing susceptible children.

Did I get the format right?

No at all. You obviously need more practice at the Russian Reversal.

That, and I can't take a rant like that from a poster named FAG seriously.

Why on Earth should I or anyone else care what God wills?

Perhaps you shouldn't care about it on Earth...it's the next life that you should worry about.

No at all. You obviously need more practice at the Russian Reversal.

That, and I can't take a rant like that from a poster named FAG seriously.

I laughed after reading that:p

No at all. You obviously need more practice at the Russian Reversal.

That, and I can't take a rant like that from a poster named FAG seriously.

I can taste the irony.

Young minds are contaminated by homophobia (and other kinds of bigotry) all the time.

Point taken.

Soheran: 1 Skaladora: 0

In free, democratic, capitalist Russia

Well, two out of three ain't bad. Although Russia is indeed capitalist and democratic, it would be quite a stretch to deem it "free."

disgusting bigoted scum

Just because such people possess a conscience and seek to right the wrongs in the world today does not make them "disgusting," "bigoted," or "scum."

attack innocent people

I wouldn't call them "innocent" any more than I would call people marching around advocating the violent overthrow of the state "innocent."

"Nihilism" seems more the domain of the people who want to deny the equality and dignity of other human beings. And "perversion" the domain of those who want others to suppress their natural selves for an incoherent and morally bankrupt conception of sexual purity.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions; however, God is the ultimate authority on this matter, and he disagrees with you. Perhaps your hubris is standing in the way of your eternal salvation; abandon your arrogance and embrace God's word.

Twisted and sickening; it makes me all the more glad I live in Canada.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6695913.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6696329.stm

Does the Moscow Mayor have any justification in banning the protest other than religious beliefs? Should the police give more protection to the protesters? because currently it looks like they are doing bugger all and letting them be beaten up by anti-gay protesters. Thoughts?

Seems to me he has justification to ban these "protest" on the grounds of maintaining order alone. It would appear gays aren't welcome in Moscow. Its a little like going to San Francisco and yelling "gay people are evil" while not expecting a reaction. So no, the police have no need to give more protection to the protesters, they bring it on themselves it would appear.

note: I'm not advocating beating up gays, I'm just saying they should choose their protest places better.

However, one should also campaign against the morally abhorrent viewpoint of homo-sexuals and seek to prevent young minds from being contaminated with their filth.

So they can be contaminated by your bigotry instead?

*snip*

My result is:

11 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

Quite unsurprising.

So they can be contaminated by your bigotry instead?

That would be impossible, given that I am not a bigot. In fact, I even have a homo-sexual friend.

Perhaps you shouldn't care about it on Earth...it's the next life that you should worry about.

Yes, it's possible that God exists, and that He is a bigoted asshole who will send me to Hell to burn for eternity.

On the other hand, it is also possible that there is no god. And it's similarly possible that the real god is a giant rubber chicken who loves everyone, or a flaming leftist who'll welcome any anarchist commie with open arms, or pretty much anything else one can imagine, with any variety of preferences regarding sexual orientation.

So why should I worry? And even if you're right, it would hardly be moral to obey the commands of a disgusting sadistic bigot, even if He does have an omnipotence machine, anyway.

Anything that runs contrary to God's will is perverted; this includes homo-sexual behavior.
:eek:


Blasphemer!

Pretendst thou to presume to know the will of thy allmighty Father and Lord? Behold, the Heretic! Beware of the False Prophet that lurks on the Forum, corrupting the Word of God and the Will of God.

Thy path willst not end well, thou shalt repent thy sins and thy wicked ways, and pray to the Allmighty God, your Lord and Saviour, for forgiveness. Lord have mercy upon thee, who disregard His most holy words and pretends to be of a Divine stature!

Amen!

Seems to me he has justification to ban these "protest" on the grounds of maintaining order alone. It would appear gays aren't welcome in Moscow. Its a little like going to San Francisco and yelling "gay people are evil" while not expecting a reaction. So no, the police have no need to give more protection to the protesters, they bring it on themselves it would appear.

note: I'm not advocating beating up gays, I'm just saying they should choose their protest places better.

You're still trolling around with this mock Islamist fascism? Really, now, you're almost as transparent as FAG. That people keep feeding both of you is a testament to their idiocy.

And even if you're right, it would hardly be moral to obey the commands of a disgusting sadistic bigot, even if He does have an omnipotence machine, anyway.

May God take pity on you.

:eek:


Blasphemer!

Pretendst thou to presume to know the will of thy allmighty Father and Lord? Behold, the Heretic! Beware of the False Prophet that lurks on the Forum, corrupting the Word of God and the Will of God.

Thy path willst not end well, thou shalt repent thy sins and thy wicked ways, and pray to the Allmighty God, your Lord and Saviour, for forgiveness. Lord have mercy upon thee, who disregard His most holy words and pretends to be of a Divine stature!

Amen!

Stone the blasphemer!...With marshmallows!

That would be impossible, given that I am not a bigot. In fact, I even have a homo-sexual friend.

Hahahahaha.

Sorry, that made me laugh. It's like a racist pig saying "I think blacks are inherently inferior to white people, but I'm not racist, I have a black friend."

Clearly, either that person is not your friend, does not exist, or you are disgustingly contemptuous and hateful toward your "friends".

That would be impossible, given that I am not a bigot.

Given what you have displayed here, you are a bigot, preaching intolerence of homosexuals.

In fact, I even have a homo-sexual friend.

Wow, have a cookie. I'm sure he/she appreciates your views and condemnation.

So why should I worry? And even if you're right, it would hardly be moral to obey the commands of a disgusting sadistic bigot, even if He does have an omnipotence machine, anyway.

Quoted for the Fucking Truth

You're still trolling around with this mock Islamist fascism? Really, now, you're almost as transparent as FAG. That people keep feeding both of you is a testament to their idiocy.

If you really think I'm a troll, put me on ignore. Either that or stop with this rubbish that I'm somehow a troll. Matter of fact, to speed up the process I'll put you on ignore seeing as every response you've had to me has been one of trolling. We're done here.

Clearly, either that person is not your friend, does not exist, or you are disgustingly contemptuous and hateful toward your "friends".

I do not hate homo-sexuals and more than I hate other types of sinners; I simply try to steer them towards the path to righteousness. Indeed, the Bible teaches us to love everyone, regardless of the errors they may have made. I strictly adhere to that precept; thus, I love my homo-sexual friend.

That would be impossible, given that I am not a bigot. In fact, I even have a homo-sexual friend.

Ok, first off, the word 'homosexual' is not hyphenated.

Second off, if this person does exist, I commend his patience and tolerance of your hateful viewpoint. Count yourself lucky if he doesn't wise up and kick you in the ass.

In Soviet Russia, stuff is expert on this kind of YOU!

In Soviet Russia, Russian Reversal is expert on YOU! would be more proper.

In fact, I even have a homo-sexual friend.

And thus you join the legion of other bigots who have used that excuse.

It gets old.

Well, two out of three ain't bad. Although Russia is indeed capitalist and democratic, it would be quite a stretch to deem it "free."

Ah, we agree.

Just because such people possess a conscience and seek to right the wrongs in the world today does not make them "disgusting," "bigoted," or "scum."

Indeed, those protesting for gay rights are not disgusting bigoted scum, and I did not label them so.

I was talking about those attacking the protestors. ;)

I wouldn't call them "innocent" any more than I would call people marching around advocating the violent overthrow of the state "innocent."

True, "innocent" is too weak a word in both cases.

"Heroic" seems more appropriate.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions; however, God is the ultimate authority on this matter,

No, He isn't.

"God says so" is not a justification or condemnation of anything. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is."

and he disagrees with you.

Supposedly.

Perhaps your hubris is standing in the way of your eternal salvation; abandon your arrogance and embrace God's word.

God seems to be the arrogant one here, telling me what to do.

So no, the police have no need to give more protection to the protesters, they bring it on themselves it would appear.

For decent human beings, the willingness to defend justice and equality despite knowing that you will be attacked for it is a sign of courage and moral principle, not an excuse to deprive people of their right not to be attacked for voicing their opinions.

note: I'm not advocating beating up gays, I'm just saying they should choose their protest places better.

Places where gays are beaten up for demanding their rights are far and away the best places for gays to demand their rights, for it is those places where they are most lacking.

We're done here.

Wow, if it spreads that it's this easy to make Soviestan drop the act, that ignore list of his may just grow exponentially.

Wow, if it spreads that it's this easy to make Soviestan drop the act, that ignore list of his may just grow exponentially.

One can only hope.

One can only hope.

You should have seen his profile before someone (could've been me) rubbed it in his face. It stated that Soviestan was atheist, left-wing, anti-fundamentalist, supported abortions, equal rights for women, gay rights and so on and so forth.

He had it changed soon thereafter in an attempt to be able to continue to troll those who had not seen his pre-troll posts, and it's been going on for months now. It's so pellucid.

God seems to be the arrogant one here, telling me what to do.

You may think you're clever with the sly way you twisted my words and distorted my message. You may think you're superior to me because you have an "open-minded" viewpoint. Well, the only thing you've opened your mind to is loathsome and repulsive opinions. God is omnipotent and omniscient; you're not. He tries to lead all the sheep who have gone astray back to the path of righteousness; he's telling you how to get back on that road to redemption. You may be more intelligent than me, but you can't outsmart God with your guileful comments. It's time you recognized that you are in the hands of a higher power and acted accordingly.

I do not hate homo-sexuals and more than I hate other types of sinners; I simply try to steer them towards the path to righteousness. Indeed, the Bible teaches us to love everyone, regardless of the errors they may have made. I strictly adhere to that precept; thus, I love my homo-sexual friend.

Then consider me confused at that person's tolerance of your offensive, judgemental, and downright degrading comments on him/her on an issue which they have absolutely no control upon.

You cannot steer someone away from his "sins" because homosexuality is not a choice. It is as pointless and hurtful as trying to "steer a black person towards the path of righteousness that is being white". A gay man or lesbian woman can no more change the way they are than asians can unbridle their eyes, someone change the color of their skin, or hair color.

You also fail to explain on what grounds letting peaceful protesters in Moscow getting beat up is acceptable. No matter who they are or why, it is entirely preposterous to let human beings be assaulted in public like that, in full view of the police forces, and actually arrest the victims instead of the attackers. If Neo-nazi fascist bigots spreading messages of hate and violence parading around deserve protection against mob justice (which they do, because every single human being deserves the protection afforded by the law, no matter how ignorant or stupid) then why on earth should this not be considered criminal?

I liked this thread better when it was full of Russian Reversals.

I liked this thread better when it was full of Russian Reversals.

In Soviet Russia, Threads like you

In NSG, people troll threads. In Soviet Russia, threads troll YOU!

[QUOTE]For decent human beings, the willingness to defend justice and equality despite knowing that you will be attacked for it is a sign of courage and moral principle, not an excuse to deprive people of their right not to be attacked for voicing their opinions.

Homosexuality was decriminalize in Russia in '93. They have their justice and equality and seem to only be doing this to shove in people's faces and rile them up. Russia has enough issues right now.

Places where gays are beaten up for demanding their rights are far and away the best places for gays to demand their rights, for it is those places where they are most lacking.

Then if they knew that going in, they shouldn't expect police protection.

No, but the concept that homo-sexuals should have the same rights as normal people is a doctrine.

Incorrect. The concept of equal rights is doctrine. The Preamble of the US Constitution makes doctrinaire statements. I am a normal person, I breathe the same air, I served in the military and retired from after serving my nation, I have hopes, dreams and aspirations, and I do not feel threatened with your hetero-sexuality. You have the perfect right to be what you were born to be. Oh, and the word is HOMOSEXUAL, not homo-sexual.



Anything that runs contrary to God's will is perverted; this includes homo-sexual behavior.

Fortunately, God does not speak through you and only HE is qualified to judge me. Ever read that line in the Gospel of St. Matthew? "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged?" Neither you nor your religious leaders have the market cornered on moral authority, it certainly seems lacking in ethics.



Indeed; homophobia (the fear of homo-sexuals) is wrong. One should afford homo-sexuals the same privileges as everyone else. However, one should also campaign against the morally abhorrent viewpoint of homo-sexuals and seek to prevent young minds from being contaminated with their filth.

So, if I have the right to be protected. I have the right to be protected from YOUR filth, your perversion of religious doctrine. Go and print your vile screed elsewhere. I could give a shit less what you think about me or gay people. Your kind was there when blacks demanded equal rights and YOUR KIND argued against it. Your kind was there when women demanded equal rights, including the right to vote. Needless to say, YOUR KIND was there again arguing against it. Your kind was there when the issue of mixed racial marriages was being questioned. Once again, YOUR KIND argued that blacks marrying whites was unnatural and wrong.

Once again YOUR KIND is invoking the name of the Father in arguing against equal rights and treatment for homosexuals. My, aren't we original? Luckily, YOUR KIND has a crappy track record. You will lose, not because people are slipping into moral decay, but because people actually see through your piffle and believe that the Father loves everyone, not just those specially "saved" people who seldom IF EVER practice what they preach.

That's right, YOUR KIND has lost every single time, and you will lose again. Chew on that, bunky.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions; however, God is I am the ultimate authority on this matter, and he I disagrees with you. Perhaps your hubris is standing in the way of your eternal salvation; abandon your arrogance and embrace God's My word.
I fixed it. I certainly hope one day you are touched by His Noodly Appendage (http://www.venganza.org).

You may think you're superior to me...
Let me stop you right there.

Yes.

*Various truthful and unarguable comments*
I think I love you. In an entirely inappropriate way, no matter how much it might displease Moscow's mayor.

Stone the blasphemer!...With marshmallows!

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/EIchurchofengland.gif

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/EIchurchofengland.gif

Much funnier in person. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY)

You may think you're clever with the sly way you twisted my words and distorted my message. You may think you're superior to me because you have an "open-minded" viewpoint.

I think my viewpoint is superior to yours. I think my understanding of the truth is closer to the truth than yours.

I don't really think I'm "superior" to anyone.

Well, the only thing you've opened your mind to is loathsome and repulsive opinions.

I could say the same to you.

The "only" thing. That is why your mind is closed: you don't listen to the others.

I, on the other hand, pay careful attention to what people like you say, "loathsome and repulsive" as it may be. Sometimes it annoys me. Sometimes it offends me. Sometimes it infuriates me. But I am never convinced, because all of that openmindedness and rationality ends up giving you a razor-sharp capability to tell right from wrong that blind reliance on what your parents, or your church, or your holy book tells you is true will never get you.

God is omnipotent and omniscient; you're not.

God doesn't exist. If He did, I'd have no reason to believe that He were homophobic.

He tries to lead all the sheep who have gone astray back to the path of righteousness; he's telling you how to get back on that road to redemption.

I'm not one of His sheep, so I guess the Lord will have to try someone else.

You may be more intelligent than me,

I wouldn't say that. I just take morality a whole lot more seriously than you do.

Unlike you, I don't let the arbitrary will of others determine what I ought to do.

but you can't outsmart God with your guileful comments.

If He exists, I'm sure I can't. What of it?

He does not determine the moral law. It is independent of Him.

It's time you recognized that you are in the hands of a higher power and acted accordingly.

Look, you still don't understand.

Let's say this God of yours exists, which is implausible, but nevermind that. Let's say He really will send me to Hell for not faking heterosexuality, and for defending that choice repeatedly, passionately, and sincerely.

What difference does that make to the morality of same-sex relationships? Because I will suffer horrifically for it, it is thus wrong? Because someone very powerful doesn't like it, it is thus wrong? Because I might be afraid of the consequences, it is thus wrong?

If anything, in such a circumstance it would be an obligation to not only not refrain, but to be open and loud about it... to openly defy the brutal autocrat who dares persecute a group of people for committing harmless acts, who dares deny their dignity, their rights, their status as persons, as entities that must be treated decently.

A hopeless fight, perhaps. But one far more morally compelling than hiding in shame and fear because you're afraid of punishment for a crime that wasn't.

Good job to the mayor and police.

That's not sarcasm.

Good job to the mayor and police.

That's not sarcasm.

Rights for chimps, but not for gays? Nice.

I liked this thread better when it was full of Russian Reversals.

In Soviet Union, Russian reversals get sick of YOU!

Nope, you always need the YOU! at the end. Always always always. Trust me, I'm an expert on this kind of stuff.Isn't the archtype form of that joke -

In America you can always find a party, but in Soviet Russia the Party can always find you!

?

Good job to the mayor and police.

That's not sarcasm.

And would you care to explain why you think that?

Isn't the archtype form of that joke -

In America you can always find a party, but in Soviet Russia the Party can always find you!

?

Ya.

Yes, it's possible that God exists,

So why should I worry? And even if you're right,....

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out
there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.

Much funnier in person. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY)

True, but I figured that nobody would click any links in this thread, so having just found the pic I thought I should try to force it on some people ;)

Bah. Such a sad thread needs a little pick-me-up, so good link anyways :)

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out
there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.

Ah, Pascal's Wager.

What if God hates the idea of people believing in Him without any convincing evidence, and sends such people to Hell?

It's time you recognized that you are in the hands of a higher power and acted accordingly.

God may have created me. God may be vastly more powerful and intelligent than me. Still doesn't make me his bitch.

You do realise btw that you believe in the wrong God ? The real one is rather pissed with you for worshipping a false one.

Much funnier in person. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY)

That was funny? :confused: Must be Brit humor.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out
there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.

Shitty argument that assumes that your version of god is the correct one.

Shitty argument that assumes that your version of god is the correct one.

On the contrary. If you read it again it makes no assumption about the existance of or non-existance of God. It states only a personal preference on how I choose to live my life.

On the contrary. If you read it again it makes no assumption about the existance of or non-existance of God. It states only a personal preference on how I choose to live my life.

It implies that there are some sort of negative consequences associated with living as an atheist and finding out there is a god after death. For all you know, god might not even care in the slightest.

May God take pity on you.

May Thor take pity on you. I foresee a lightning strike and a surged computer in the future :p

That was funny? :confused: Must be Brit humor.

Nope, just humor :)

Must be Brit humor.

What are you implying? :mad:

It implies that there are some sort of negative consequences associated with living as an atheist and finding out there is a god after death. For all you know, god might not even care in the slightest.

Your prespective, not mine.

On the contrary. If you read it again it makes no assumption about the existance of or non-existance of God. It states only a personal preference on how I choose to live my life.

Does your reasoning take into account that God may hate people who adhere to the wrong faith more than people who have no faith ? After all, He/She/It might be a jealous God...

And do not fail to notice this:
...members of the Russian Orthodox Church held an anti-gay demonstration in Moscow.

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexy II, supports the ban on gay parades.

They had a service before going to beat the gays and wish death upon them.

Just something to keep in mind for the next religious debate...

What are you implying? :mad:

I'm implying that Brits have a different sence of humor than Americans.

And do not fail to notice this:


They had a service before going to beat the gays and wish death upon them.

Just something to keep in mind for the next religious debate...

I wonder if Fred Phelps was there for the services and rally. :eek:

Firstly, I don't see why FreedomAndGlory is using the Bible to support his arguments, since the Bible isn't believed by everyone and isn't the accepted standard of morality. It has the same weight as me posting in the forums using Brahma's laws as my moral standard and judging others by them. This isn't the thread to argue it's legitimacy

Secondly, isn't Russia traditionally an Orthodox country? In many respects also, isn't it an Eastern country as well? It operates on a different set of principles than Western countries do, and it seems unfair to judge them by our own principles, and condemn them for their culture. The people were obviously very offended by the demonstration which threatens their culture, and reacted violently to prevent futher demonstrations. Didn't this same event happen a year before with the same results? Homosexuality has been decriminalized, isn't that enough without having to purposely shove controversial, offensive beliefs in the general public's face? Having a gay-pride in the US and having one in Russia are two different things. People knew violence would break out.

As a closing thought, the most Orthodox thing to do would be for the Patriarch of Russia to announce a quiet day of fasting, and let the demonstrators walk empty streets. That would send a much better message to Gay Rights activists in Russia than violence.

Violence is not Orthodox.

Before others after me condemn me for thought, realize I know I'm full of mistakes and fault. I don't arrogantly believe my thought is truth, and I'm very open to criticism.

It operates on a different set of principles than Western countries do, and it seems unfair to judge them by our own principles, and condemn them for their culture.

If their cultural principles are immoral, they deserve to be condemned.

The same thing is, of course, true of our cultural principles... and there are plenty of places to criticize those, too.

The fact that it's your culture is not an excuse, any more than a murderer's conviction that her deed was justified means that we should excuse her action.

The people were obviously very offended by the demonstration which threatens their culture,

The homophobic, bigoted aspects of their culture, which ought to be threatened.

and reacted violently to prevent futher demonstrations. Didn't this same event happen a year before with the same results?

Yes and yes. So?

Homosexuality has been decriminalized, isn't that enough without having to purposely shove controversial, offensive beliefs in the general public's face?

No, it isn't.

Gay people do not only deserve the right to engage in same-sex intercourse. They deserve the right to participate in society on equal terms with straight people.

Anything less is an injustice that should be protested.

Having a gay-pride in the US and having one in Russia are two different things. People knew violence would break out.

People knew violence would break out when they protested for civil rights for blacks in the United States, too. Indeed, by the standards of Southern (white) culture then, their protests were wrong, and the violence against them was justified.

Does that mean that they shouldn't have fought for freedom?

Homosexuality has been decriminalized, isn't that enough without having to purposely shove controversial, offensive beliefs in the general public's face? Having a gay-pride in the US and having one in Russia are two different things. People knew violence would break out.

How dare they challenge conventional morality!

There's a reason people question this: because it's unjust. Just like blacks rallied in the 1960s in the US against conventional racism, gays are going to rally against homophobia in today's world.

I wonder if Fred Phelps was there for the services and rally. :eek:

He wasn't, but an official representative of the church was...

I think I love you. In an entirely inappropriate way, no matter how much it might displease Moscow's mayor.

<blush>

The Mayor of Moscow can go suck an electrifed cattle prod as far as I'm concerned.

<blush>

The Mayor of Moscow can go suck an electrifed cattle prod as far as I'm concerned.

I see you love kinky stuff. ;) It ought to make things much more interesting.

I see you love kinky stuff. ;) It ought to make things much more interesting.

Can I join in? I can show you some cool things to do with feathers.

I don't think it's because they are gay on the basis of morality that the parades were banned, Putin himself has said many times that he will not back down from going after marginal militant groups, such as the oil oligarchs and other business opportunists who wish to benefit from the state of Russia, they did so under Yeltsin, and their still doing it now, Yeltsin did more damage to Russia than Hitler, over a million dead in capitalist reforms, millions more toppled into the poverty of the 'survival of the richest' dump while rich americans economically gang raped the eastern bloc to pay their debt.

Putin is a hero, you reactionaries on this forum whinge about the opinions of these marginal groups, when Putin enjoys the highest approval rating of any Russian President ever, he represents the common people and is hard on the oligarchs such as that one who fled to Ukraine. These marginal groups want to cause anarchy and disarray from the state of Russia as it is, they do not represent anyone.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, as Putin said, was the worst event in human history, it was the hope for billions worldwide, in it's aftermath capitalism ruined the eastern bloc and opportunists, whether in Chechnya or in the banks, tried to make profit from it, millions of Russians were instantly separated from their own borders.

I don't think it's because they are gay on the basis of morality that the parades were banned, Putin himself has said many times that he will not back down from going after marginal militant groups, such as the oil oligarchs and other business opportunists who wish to benefit from the state of Russia, they did so under Yeltsin, and their still doing it now, Yeltsin did more damage to Russia than Hitler, over a million dead in capitalist reforms, millions more toppled into the poverty of the 'survival of the richest' dump while rich americans economically gang raped the eastern bloc to pay their debt.

Yeltsin is a hero, you reactionaries on this forum whinge about the opinions of these marginal groups, when Yeltsin enjoys the highest approval rating of any Russian President ever, he represents the common people and is hard on the oligarchs such as that one who fled to Ukraine. These marginal groups want to cause anarchy and disarray from the state of Russia as it is, they do not represent anyone.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, as Putin said, was the worst event in human history, it was the hope for billions worldwide, in it's aftermath capitalism ruined the eastern bloc and opportunists, whether in Chechnya or in the banks, tried to make profit from it, millions of Russians were instantly separated from their own borders.

This thread isn't about communism vs. capitalism. Try again.

*Interesting viewpoint completely irrelevant to the topic at hand*

None of what you posted seems relevant to the fact that, whatever else Putin might be doing and however high his approval rating may be, he does nothing to stop things like these from happening. Basic human rights are being trampled on by the mayor of his capital, under his very nose, and he does nothing to stop it.

This thread is not even about Putin, however. It's about bigoted, ignorant, moralistic imbeciles using their power to repress a minority instead of protecting and looking out for every citizen equally, turning the law to their own purposes.

None of what you posted seems relevant to the fact that, whatever else Putin might be doing and however high his approval rating may be, he does nothing to stop things like these from happening. Basic human rights are being trampled on by the mayor of his capital, under his very nose, and he does nothing to stop it.

This thread is not even about Putin, however. It's about bigoted, ignorant, moralistic imbeciles using their power to repress a minority instead of protecting and looking out for every citizen equally, turning the law to their own purposes.

These marginal groups do not deserve to be protected, their most likely in the pocket of foreigner anyways.

These marginal groups do not deserve to be protected, their most likely in the pocket of foreigner anyways.

The foremost role of any government is to protect its citizens by maintaining peace and order - if any people, foreign or not, gay or not, are deemed troublesome, for any reason, then it is the role of government to resolve that, not to let a bunch of thugs do it for them.

It creates a dangerous precedent.

These marginal groups do not deserve to be protected, their most likely in the pocket of foreigner anyways.

You, sir, are a fascist if you truly believe that not all citizens deserve equal treatment and protection under the eye of the law.

The law is clear: assaulting another human being unprovoked is criminal. It's the law in Russia, it's the law in Europe, it's the law in North and South America, it's the law in Asia. It's the law every freaking where that isn't under some sort of totalitarian dictatorship government. Physically attacking someone is wrong, and punishable by the state.

Yet, somehow, you advocate that because gays are a "marginal group", a minority, or that because a group might be "in the pocket of foreigners", they do not deserve to be protected?

That's bullshit. That's George Orwell's famous "Everyone is equal, but some of us are more equal than others" quote.

Justice is, or rather should be, blind and impartial. When a law gets passed, it must be applied fairly to everyone. You do not get to pick and choose who you enforce the law on, and who you don't enforce the law on.

What is going on Russia right now is unacceptable. Double standards are unacceptable. Authorities turning a blind eye, and even contributing to mob justice such as this is unacceptable. No matter who's getting punched at, kicked, or arrested for peacefully marching.

What was the point of only writing "Gay Rights" in English and the rest in Russian?

It says the same thing in both languages so the media can pick up on it.

It says the same thing in both languages so the media can pick up on it.

Or it's hard-liners looking for publicity. You're more likely to get media buzz if your medium can understand what you're saying.

...or something.

People seem to be shoehorning Orwell in a bit, who did refer to homosexuality as a perversion on at least one occasion as I recall, in something about Salvador Dali? I wish people would quote more from The Lion and the Unicorn, actually,

The police in Moskva should have done their job and fought back against the attacking criminals. If having a march is an inappropriate provocation to violence, what else is? Plenty of Russians don't like jews, does that mean they should be forced to hide their identity? These things need to be expressed openly if they are are going to be accepted.

I don't think it's because they are gay on the basis of morality that the parades were banned,

So what's the real reason, since you clearly have such enlightenment and wisdom that the clear statements of the Moscow mayor and the obvious social context of Russian homophobia are irrelevant?

And what the fuck does capitalism have to do with any of this?

Putin is a hero, you reactionaries on this forum whinge about the opinions of these marginal groups,

You're the reactionary. You're the one legitimizing a transparently reactionary campaign whose justifications are in organized religion and old patterns of bigotry.

And how do you do it? By making an authoritarian statist out to be some kind of socialist reformer, when both his rhetoric and his actions indicate nothing of the sort... and then by using this irrelevant "fact", through some mysterious process whose details you have refrained to provide, to justify attacks on people whose "crime" was to challenge Russian homophobia.

These marginal groups do not deserve to be protected, their most likely in the pocket of foreigner anyways.

Because of course no real Russian would want equality and decent treatment! That's the sole domain of "foreigners", is it?

You realize that you will never win the struggle against capitalism if you align yourself with the forces defending the status quo (like the bigots of organized religion) instead of the forces challenging it (like those "marginal groups"), don't you?

How many Bolshevik Jews were there?

It's primarily about the maintenance of public behavioral and social norms.

People seem to be shoehorning Orwell in a bit, who did refer to homosexuality as a perversion on at least one occasion as I recall, in something about Salvador Dali? I wish people would quote more from The Lion and the Unicorn, actually,

The police in Moskva should have done their job and fought back against the attacking criminals. If having a march is an inappropriate provocation to violence, what else is? Plenty of Russians don't like jews, does that mean they should be forced to hide their identity? These things need to be expressed openly if they are are going to be accepted.Please don't compare gays to Jews. Gays are born that way, it's like skin color, it's a natural thing. But no-one is born with Judaism in his head.

These marginal groups do not deserve to be protected, their most likely in the pocket of foreigner anyways.What's a marginal group? On the margin of what?

It's primarily about the maintenance of public behavioral and social norms.

That's probably the excuse Iran gives for stoning 'adulterers'.

Please don't compare gays to Jews. Gays are born that way, it's like skin color, it's a natural thing. But no-one is born with Judaism in his head.

'Jewish' is a race as well as a religion.

'Jewish' is a race as well as a religion.Only Nazis and Jews believe so.
Being white, black, yellow, red, etc is biological, and so is being gay. Being ('racially') Jewish is a completely arbitrary distinction.

Only Nazis and Jews believe so.

I'm neither, you're wrong.

I'm neither, you're wrong.
Then why would you follow a Nazi definition of (a Jewish) race?

But this thread is about gays.

And do not fail to notice this:


They had a service before going to beat the gays and wish death upon them.

Just something to keep in mind for the next religious debate...

It should be kept in mind that Orthodoxy (and Russian Orthodoxy in particular) is not like the western versions of Christianity. The Orthodox Church did not undergo a Reformation or a Counter-Reformation and as such is probably the most conservative of the Christian churches. Therefore, I wouldn'l call the actions of Orthodoxy representative of all of the Christian churches.

It should be kept in mind that Orthodoxy (and Russian Orthodoxy in particular) is not like the western versions of Christianity. The Orthodox Church did not undergo a Reformation or a Counter-Reformation and as such is probably the most conservative of the Christian churches. Therefore, I wouldn'l call the actions of Orthodoxy representative of all of the Christian churches.
I do not see why this supports their actions. If anything, it makes their actions worse because they are even more backwards than their Western Christian counterparts!

It's primarily about the maintenance of public behavioral and social norms.

Fuck "public behavioral and social norms." They justify absolutely nothing.

Freedom and equality are not contingent on society's acceptance of them.

Edit: And again, the conservatism you accuse others of is made manifest. No real advocate of revolutionary change, or even of broad, profound reforms, would say that society's present behavioral and social norms somehow determine what is and is not okay when it comes to political action.

That would be letting the status quo narrow drastically the potential of change, by ensuring that all changes to the status quo are consistent with the status quo broadly conceived. How convenient.

Once again: "is" does not imply "ought."

Then again, you probably are one of those people who just tosses "reactionary" around arbitrarily because it sounds cool... so I'm not sure why I bother.

Please don't compare gays to Jews. Gays are born that way, it's like skin color, it's a natural thing. But no-one is born with Judaism in his head.

I think he/she was talking about Russian Semites.

Then why would you follow a Nazi definition of (a Jewish) race?

But this thread is about gays.

Don't you see?

Jews are homosexual!

Then again, you probably are one of those people who just tosses "reactionary" around arbitrarily because it sounds cool... so I'm not sure why I bother.

Soheran...you rock.:D

Ok, I have no problem with homossexuals, but I have problem with sissies:

After receiving the blow, he leaned on a lamppost and shouted: "Someone protect me, Someone protect me," before being roughly escorted away by riot police.

LOL. Sorry man, act manly.

Sorry man, act manly.

So when's the last time you attended a protest where you knew you were likely to be attacked by counter-protestors supported by the police?

Don't you see?

Jews are homosexual!Are they now? Well, that's a good thing.

Are they now? Well, that's a good thing.

Not necessarily. I'd say it depends on whether they're hot jews, or ugly jews.

Therefore, I wouldn'l call the actions of Orthodoxy representative of all of the Christian churches.

Absolutely. Another thing that should be kept in mind in any religious debate...

Not necessarily. I'd say it depends on whether they're hot jews, or ugly jews.

More options can't ever hurt.

In Soviet Russia, gay rights protest YOU!

Soheran...you rock.:D

The only people who hold that opinion are NSers.

I'm not sure what the implications of that are.

My, my. Russian society seems to be trying to bring across the point of "get your western filth ideals out of our country." Not that homosexuality is a western concept, only the open tolerance and support of the homosexual lifestyle seems presently unique in being a western ideal.

Russia on the other hand is not western,... nor does it ever wish to consider itself such.

In short,.. I don't understand why westerners some as the Italian MP whine when they get beaten to pieces, publically humiliated and concurrently arrested for disturbing the peace. The people as a whole obviously don't want him there. He can either respect that or face the consequences and not expect the police to pull him out of the crap he dug himself.

Me. I believe that Russia, being a sovereign nation can do whatever the fuck it wants. If it feels like executing homosexuals like Iran, then so be it. It's nation, it's people. Messing in the affairs of other nations is always asking for trouble and more often then not you get your fingers burned,...like Right said Fred and a few MP's learned here by returning with bad bruises, cracked ribs and blue eyes.

Me. I believe that Russia, being a sovereign nation can do whatever the fuck it wants.

Would you be okay with Russia killing you?

Or is that privilege reserved for gays?

Russia on the other hand is not western,... nor does it ever wish to consider itself such.

But is it a society of lawlessness?

In short,.. I don't understand why westerners some as the Italian MP whine when they get beaten to pieces, publically humiliated and concurrently arrested for disturbing the peace. The people as a whole obviously don't want him there. He can either respect that or face the consequences and not expect the police to pull him out of the crap he dug himself.

Well, maybe because the disturbers of the peace is those who initiate and continue violence? In this case, the counter-protestors and the police.

Me. I believe that Russia, being a sovereign nation can do whatever the fuck it wants. If it feels like executing homosexuals like Iran, then so be it. It's nation, it's people. Messing in the affairs of other nations is always asking for trouble and more often then not you get your fingers burned,...like Right said Fred and a few MP's learned here by returning with bad bruises, cracked ribs and blue eyes.

No, it can't do whatever the fuck it wants. For example, it cannot invade Finland. It cannot expect to trade with Europe if it doesn't accept Europe's premises. It cannot do anything beyond its borders, if it doesn't act like a country that has enforceable laws.

it is nation, it is people? Grammar time! A lot of Grammar time I might add.

No, it can't do whatever the fuck it wants. For example, it cannot invade Finland. It cannot expect to trade with Europe if it doesn't accept Europe's premises. It cannot do anything beyond its borders, if it doesn't act like a country that has enforceable laws.


Well, it can invade Finland... but Europe would be pissed.

Would you be okay with Russia killing you?

Or is that privilege reserved for gays?

If I live in Russia? Yes, bad luck on my part I suppose living there and irking the government or society to view me as a danger through my practices, appearence or place in society. Killing me on the sovereign ground of another nation,.... not withstanding that almost being a declaration of war on the respective nation, I would personally have a problem with that as Russia is meddling in another nations affairs.

Why should gay people be treated any differently then other people on the government and societies "shitlist.?" 100 years ago aristocrats and the upper class had it a lot worse then homosexuals have it now in Russia. Simply depends who society is pissed off at. This time the gays are taking the brunt that was reserved for the jews 150 years ago in Russia and the Burgeouise 100 years ago.

We in the West hound and dog pedophiles, in Russia they hound and dog homosexuals. Each to their own. Different nations and societies have different stances on morals and sexuality. They say we are corrupted, morally decadent and filth. We say they are bigots and loons. Both interpretations, neither an inalienable truth.

I would personally have a problem with that as Russia is meddling in another nations affairs.

Borders and sovereignty are matters of force. They have no relevance to morality.

If I conquered your neighborhood and declared it the Socialist Republic of Soheran, that would not suddenly give me the right to kill whoever I wanted.

Why should gay people be treated any differently then other people on the government and societies "shitlist.?"

They shouldn't. No one should be treated poorly simply because they are on the government and society's shitlist.

There may be other reasons to treat them poorly. But what government and society happen to think is irrelevant to that question.

Whatever you say, I very much doubt that you would take it as morally acceptable if the government and society suddenly decided, for purely arbitrary reasons, that you were evil and deserved to be murdered.

100 years ago aristocrats and the upper class had it a lot worse then homosexuals have it now in Russia. Simply depends who society is pissed off at. This time the gays are taking the brunt that was reserved for the jews 150 years ago in Russia and the Burgeouise 100 years ago.

So?

"It was done before!" is no more of a moral excuse than "They do it too!"

We in the West hound and dog pedophiles, in Russia they hound and dog homosexuals.

Homosexuality is not morally equivalent to pedophilia.

Different nations and societies have different stances on morals and sexuality.

Yes, right.

And theoretically a nation could have the moral stance that "The fact that another society has different beliefs regarding morality than we do does not mean that they have a right to act according to that morality."

Indeed, generally our society has exactly that moral stance.

So if you reject absolute morality, how can you possibly object to moral criticism of Russia on that basis?

Both interpretations, neither an inalienable truth.

How do you know that?

But is it a society of lawlessness?



Well, maybe because the disturbers of the peace is those who initiate and continue violence? In this case, the counter-protestors and the police.



No, it can't do whatever the fuck it wants. For example, it cannot invade Finland. It cannot expect to trade with Europe if it doesn't accept Europe's premises. It cannot do anything beyond its borders, if it doesn't act like a country that has enforceable laws.

it is nation, it is people? Grammar time! A lot of Grammar time I might add.

1) Learn your own language before trying to smartass to someone in an attempt to ridicule them. Especially when you are actually ignorant of your own language. Hint it makes one look incredibly stupid and self-centered afterwards;

Possessive forms of nouns ending in s

The special case of non-English names ending in silent s, z, or x (e.g. Descartes) is dealt with above.

[edit] Plurals

* When the noun is a normal plural with an added s, no extra s is added in the possessive, so pens’ lids (where there is more than one pen) is correct rather than pens’s lids. If the plural is not one that is formed by adding s, add an s for the possessive, after the apostrophe: children’s hats, women’s hairdresser, some people’s eyes, some peoples’ recent emergence into nationhood (peoples being the plural of the singular people, here). These principles are universally accepted.


2) No demonstration parade. No violent protests resulting in foreigners being beaten up. So the catalyst would be the initiators of the parade. They knew fully well that they would awaken the ire of the local people. They were being provocative nothing else. So they got slammed back down by the people, that's life. So logically one can assume the disturbers of the peace were those who were unwelcome and treaded around town tinging on the nerves of the people there.

3) Sure Russia could invade Finland. It would get a trade embargo from the EU for it. However seeing as Russia contains,...lots of fossil fuels and natural resources the EU would be punishing itself more than Russia which could continue trading with China and possibly even the US.

4) No not a society of lawlessness. A society of different ideals. Ideals we might hold to be backwards and unfitting. So we slander them as being bigotted and repressive. However Russia is it's own nation and so it's own master and creator of it's own rules. Russia is responsible first of all to the wishes of it's own people not to those of western foreigners who wish it to align itself with their own morals and self-evident truths. If the people in Russia are against homosexuality, so by proxy must the state as a representative of the people be against it.

My, my. Russian society seems to be trying to bring across the point of "get your western filth ideals out of our country." Not that homosexuality is a western concept, only the open tolerance and support of the homosexual lifestyle seems presently unique in being a western ideal.

Russia on the other hand is not western,... nor does it ever wish to consider itself such.

In short,.. I don't understand why westerners some as the Italian MP whine when they get beaten to pieces, publically humiliated and concurrently arrested for disturbing the peace. The people as a whole obviously don't want him there. He can either respect that or face the consequences and not expect the police to pull him out of the crap he dug himself.

Me. I believe that Russia, being a sovereign nation can do whatever the fuck it wants. If it feels like executing homosexuals like Iran, then so be it. It's nation, it's people. Messing in the affairs of other nations is always asking for trouble and more often then not you get your fingers burned,...like Right said Fred and a few MP's learned here by returning with bad bruises, cracked ribs and blue eyes.

If I live in Russia? Yes, bad luck on my part I suppose living there and irking the government or society to view me as a danger through my practices, appearence or place in society. Killing me on the sovereign ground of another nation,.... not withstanding that almost being a declaration of war on the respective nation, I would personally have a problem with that as Russia is meddling in another nations affairs.

Why should gay people be treated any differently then other people on the government and societies "shitlist.?" 100 years ago aristocrats and the upper class had it a lot worse then homosexuals have it now in Russia. Simply depends who society is pissed off at. This time the gays are taking the brunt that was reserved for the jews 150 years ago in Russia and the Burgeouise 100 years ago.

We in the West hound and dog pedophiles, in Russia they hound and dog homosexuals. Each to their own. Different nations and societies have different stances on morals and sexuality. They say we are corrupted, morally decadent and filth. We say they are bigots and loons. Both interpretations, neither an inalienable truth.

Nice. So much for human rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

'Nuff said.

1) Learn your own language before trying to smartass to someone in an attempt to ridicule them. Especially when you are actually ignorant of your own language. Hint it makes one look incredibly stupid and self-centered afterwards;

Actually, the possessive form of "it" is "its (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/its#Possessive_pronoun)", not "it's."

If the people of Russia are for genocide, does that mean a genocide should be initiated? Give me a fucking break.

Again, I'll bring up the US AA civil rights movement. It was part of our "culture" to hate blacks. Then some people finally decided that this discrimination was bullshit and moved to make changes. Now that gays are doing that in Russia, we have to respect Russia's "values"? BS.

2) No demonstration parade. No violent protests resulting in foreigners being beaten up. So the catalyst would be the initiators of the parade. They knew fully well that they would awaken the ire of the local people. They were being provocative nothing else. So they got slammed back down by the people, that's life. So logically one can assume the disturbers of the peace were those who were unwelcome and treaded around town tinging on the nerves of the people there.

4) No not a society of lawlessness. A society of different ideals. Ideals we might hold to be backwards and unfitting. So we slander them as being bigotted and repressive. However Russia is it's own nation and so it's own master and creator of it's own rules. Russia is responsible first of all to the wishes of it's own people not to those of western foreigners who wish it to align itself with their own morals and self-evident truths. If the people in Russia are against homosexuality, so by proxy must the state as a representative of the people be against it.


Cute how you complain about western ideals and dismiss the concept of human rights, but then rely on the idea of democratic representation.

Meethinks I smell a rat.

Borders and sovereignty are matters of force. They have no relevance to morality.

If I conquered your neighborhood and declared it the Socialist Republic of Soheran, that would not suddenly give me the right to kill whoever I wanted.



They shouldn't. No one should be treated poorly simply because they are on the government and society's shitlist.

There may be other reasons to treat them poorly. But the whims of others do not determine moral desert.

Whatever you say, I very much doubt that you would take it as morally acceptable if the government and society suddenly decided, for purely arbitrary reasons, that you were evil and deserved to be murdered.



So?

"It was done before!" is no more of a moral excuse than "They do it too!"



Homosexuality is not morally equivalent to pedophilia.



Yes, right.

And theoretically a nation could have the moral stance that "The fact that another society has different beliefs regarding morality than we do does not mean that they have a right to act according to that morality."

Indeed, generally our society has exactly that moral stance.

So if you reject absolute morality, how can you possibly object to moral criticism of Russia on that basis?



How do you know that?

1) If you made such a Republic and started killing desenters. Yes, you would be in the right. As you possess the might. Morally or ethically your actions might be reprehensible. However you are in the right by the right of might. It is the excuse every military conqueror from Alexander to Genghis Khan used.

2) No, ideally no one should be suppressed or be on a "shitlist." However this is a reality of the world. I am merely saying they are on the shitlist and so they either; a) Go to another place where they are accepted
b) Fight for their freedoms

If they choose, B they shouldn't be surprised though if they get worse reprocussions. This is simply how a lot of the world runs. The whim of the majority decides who is on the "shitlist" and who gets the rough end of the stick or not. Also I doubt Russia is based on a Magna Carta historically like the UK or the US. Russia has always had quite a turbulent history.

3) If the government all of a sudden decided I was an undesirable and I get killed because of it. I would of course react at first with "the fuck is your problem, retards." However reality would also seep in. If the majority are against you and wish for your persecution, your chances of living a normal life are slim. Most likely I would move and find my fortune elsewhere. Perhaps not fair, definitely not morally right. However the way I personally would go about the matter. Such as if I were a homosexual, in Russia at the moment. I would simply move away, to Europe or the US (rather San Francisco than to the Rednecks). Not saying this is the right thing to do. Possibly even the cowards choice in some people's eyes. However me personally, I value my safety over any ideals of a perfect world.

4) Perhaps not a moral excuse. Probably not even a rational excuse,... however it is "an excuse" and a "justificable reason" in the eyes of some people. And if this reason becomes the belief of the majority, I would be in trouble.

5) I am not saying it is. Pedophilia is doubtless worse than homosexuality. Note I am playing the devil's advocate more than being seriously a die-hard fanatic for the Russians. I however can see both sides of the pond. However for the Russians, it is simply, any sexual deviation is considerred bad. They do not go about making large differentiations. Let's take another example, say we have some berries. Some as we know are doubtlessly poisoned (pedos), others merely taste different then the most common berry (homosexuals) however are not poisonous. The Western attitude is, simply collect both from the bush even though some are different from the normal berry, as long as they are not poisoned they are fine. The Russians take the puritan stance, they only accept the normal berry and throw out the different ones along with the poisonous ones.
Another example would be that the Westerners are vegetarians and allow the eating of eggs and animal products. However not meat (which will act as the pedophiliac in this example). The Russians, the vegans, reject both meat and animal products.
Perhaps this might affront you, however that is all a matter of different education and upbringing. Don't worry. Doubtlessly there is an alter-ego of you in Russia who is at the moment just as disgusted at your lifestyle and acceptance of homosexuality as you are of his bigotry.
Different cultures, different beliefs. However I think we should know by now if you try to force your culture on another nation that it will always bring violence. It is simply said Imperialism, you are saying your view is superior to their and they should adjust to your view of the world. Change your perception and bit, transport you about 200 years back and you could be a frontman in the colonial imperialistic expansion to bring your beliefs onto the aboriginal peoples you recently conquered. There is not much difference. In both cases you try to force your view onto another culture.


6) I don't reject educated criticism. I only reject closeminded "OMG bigots 101, lol" type thinking. In order to evaluate or even pass a judgement one should look at both sides. The Russians have an old faith and old social values. Same as the old native Americans had their aboriginal beliefs before we forced christianity down their throat. We said they worship a god of violence, some practice cannabalism, hence us > them. So our morals are right and we should replace theirs.
Sadly I personally believe trying to force the Russians through external pressure to align their morals to ours will merely backfire. The change has to come from the inside of Russian society itself. Having fringy foreign green politicians marching the streets of Moscow is the wrong step in the wrong direction. It is merely showing to many Russians that we westerners believe their morals and beliefs to be wrong. Which will undoubtly be returned with a stubborn defense rebuttal. One can slowly educate, however trying to force something is never the right way. Particularly in something with a large scope such as this. Push too much and they may reject it entirely. Rather only ethnic Russians should have marched, no foreigners. That would in my eyes have been better and undoubtly in the eyes of many Russians been scrutinized with less suspicion.

Cute how you complain about western ideals and dismiss the concept of human rights, but then rely on the idea of democratic representation.

Meethinks I smell a rat.

Meethinks I smell someone who cannot or does not read.

I merely said that western ideals > Russian ideals. Both have equal merit and are seen as being right by both respective sides. Trying to force foreign morals and ideals on another nation is never smart. Rather let the change come from the inside.

If the people of Russia are for genocide, does that mean a genocide should be initiated? Give me a fucking break.

Again, I'll bring up the US AA civil rights movement. It was part of our "culture" to hate blacks. Then some people finally decided that this discrimination was bullshit and moved to make changes. Now that gays are doing that in Russia, we have to respect Russia's "values"? BS.


You are actually supporting my arguement. Yes it was in your culture. But you changed it yourself. Did you have Europeans, such as Brits coming over and tell you to desist it immediately?

Same I am saying that foreigners meddling in the rights movements in Russia will only bring backlashes and bring suspicion into it.

Actually, the possessive form of "it" is "its (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/its#Possessive_pronoun)", not "it's."

Hmmm my bad. English is not my mothertongue. You will have to excuse that transgression on my part.

Meethinks I smell someone who cannot or does not read.

I merely said that western ideals > Russian ideals. Both have equal merit and are seen as being right by both respective sides. Trying to force foreign morals and ideals on another nation is never smart. Rather let the change come from the inside.

Given that these were RUSSIAN protesters in RUSSIA I'd say it's (and yes, "it's" is an abbreviation of "it is", the posessive form for an inatimate object is "its", before you go telling me to learn the english language for correcting your mistake and thus making an ass out of yourself, again) pretty clear that the efforts of change are coming from the inside.

You are correct, there is indeed someone who has manifested either the inability or unwillingness to read. Unfortunatly for you, it's not TCT.

Hmmm my bad. English is not my mothertongue. You will have to excuse that transgression on my part.

then maybe you should drop the arrogance and presume to try and correct people in a language that is not your own after you made the mistake? Why should we "excuse your transgressions?" I'm far less concerned about the error you made, and far more concerned about why you chose to say it.

Nice. So much for human rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

'Nuff said.

That is the declaration of Independence of the US. How is that related to what Russian ideals should be? Remember Russia is only a democracy since 15 years to be on the generous side.
The US was a democracy for over 200 years. It took it almost 150 years for it to afford black people the same rights as white people. Homosexuals only even more recently. Women also only in the late 60s , early 70s.

You seriously expect Russia to do in 15 years what the US managed only in 150 years? Sheesh,... nice wish thinking you got there.

then maybe you should drop the arrogance and presume to try and correct people in a language that is not your own after you made the mistake? Why should we "excuse your transgressions?" I'm far less concerned about the error you made, and far more concerned about why you chose to say it.

Because I wrongly assumed I was in the right? Also after his derisive attitude, which was clear baiting I felt more than justified in flaming back.

Meethinks I smell someone who cannot or does not read.

I merely said that western ideals > Russian ideals. Both have equal merit and are seen as being right by both respective sides. Trying to force foreign morals and ideals on another nation is never smart. Rather let the change come from the inside.

What exactly are these "Russian ideals" that are different from, but have equal merit to "western ideals."

I thought Russia aspired to democracy. I thought Russia aspired to human rights.

Regardless, I reject your absolutist form of cultural relativism. There are certain absolutes -- such as equality and individual rights -- that triumph.

That is the declaration of Independence of the US. How is that related to what Russian ideals should be?

Regardless of whether it is a Russian ideal, it should be a Russian ideal. QED.

Remember Russia is only a democracy since 15 years to be on the generous side.
The US was a democracy for over 200 years. It took it almost 150 years for it to afford black people the same rights as white people. Homosexuals only even more recently. Women also only in the late 60s , early 70s.

You seriously expect Russia to do in 15 years what the US managed only in 150 years? Sheesh,... nice wish thinking you got there.

1. As you seriously arguing that Russia cannot be held to a higher standard than the U.S.A in 1801?

2. Are you seriously arguing that the U.S.A. was not wrong in denying rights to black people, women, etc?

3. Time doesn't bring change all by itself. One advocates for change in the right direction. Lack of time doesn't excuse oppression.

Because I wrongly assumed

bingo.

That is the declaration of Independence of the US. How is that related to what Russian ideals should be? Remember Russia is only a democracy since 15 years to be on the generous side.
The US was a democracy for over 200 years. It took it almost 150 years for it to afford black people the same rights as white people. Homosexuals only even more recently. Women also only in the late 60s , early 70s.

You seriously expect Russia to do in 15 years what the US managed only in 150 years? Sheesh,... nice wish thinking you got there.

so you think it's reasonable for russsia to have civil rights roughly equivalent to 1805's America?

Or maybe we can realize that it's the 21st century, and expecing a modern democracy to prgress at the same rate as centuries old democracies is stupid.

Morally or ethically your actions might be reprehensible. However you are in the right by the right of might.

You seem fundamentally confused by the notion of "in the right."

It means nothing other than not "morally or ethically" reprehensible.

If they choose, B they shouldn't be surprised though if they get worse reprocussions.

Perhaps not, and I doubt they are surprised.

Calling something wrong and calling something surprising are very different things.

If the majority are against you and wish for your persecution, your chances of living a normal life are slim.

So?

And if this reason becomes the belief of the majority, I would be in trouble.

But you would not deserve to be.

No one's doubting that Russian society is very homophobic. Undoubtedly the protestors knew the kind of response they would get. But that does not mean that they deserved it, or that it was in any way morally legitimate.

Perhaps this might affront you, however that is all a matter of different education and upbringing.

Perhaps in part.

But since I do not at all agree with most people in my culture regarding proper moral stances, I doubt that it is in entirety.

Don't worry. Doubtlessly there is an alter-ego of you in Russia who is at the moment just as disgusted at your lifestyle and acceptance of homosexuality as you are of his bigotry.

And if I were to meet him, I would ask him "Why?" And perhaps he would ask me the same question.

And if both of us could stand the other long enough, we might be able to examine our justifications for our respective beliefs thoroughly enough that we were able to reach a joint conclusion.

Of course, in real life, I have attempted to do this many times with homophobes. I have found that it is one of those moral beliefs without the slightest shred of serious justification behind it.

So I conclude that my Russian alter-ego is wrong, and I am right.

However I think we should know by now if you try to force your culture on another nation that it will always bring violence.

I have no desire to supplant Russian culture with Western culture.

I have a desire to ensure that all people everywhere are afforded liberty, equality, and dignity, regardless of sexual orientation - and regardless of the cultural beliefs of anyone, Western or Russian.

Western culture has its own long history of homophobia, after all.

Having fringy foreign green politicians marching the streets of Moscow is the wrong step in the wrong direction.

The point of this is not to challenge the culture. It is to challenge the legal repression.

And there international pressure can play a very important role.

They had a service before going to beat the gays and wish death upon them.

Just something to keep in mind for the next religious debate...

You make it sound like after the service, Patriarch Alexey told his flock to bring him blood. I'm sure the violence didn't start like that.
Even if the Patriarch was an absolute asshole, I doubt he would instigate violence, because any figurehead could've seen the bad-press repercussion.

That is the declaration of Independence of the US. How is that related to what Russian ideals should be? Remember Russia is only a democracy since 15 years to be on the generous side.
The US was a democracy for over 200 years. It took it almost 150 years for it to afford black people the same rights as white people. Homosexuals only even more recently. Women also only in the late 60s , early 70s.

You seriously expect Russia to do in 15 years what the US managed only in 150 years? Sheesh,... nice wish thinking you got there.It doesn't take 150 years to get smart. It takes only a few minutes. This is not a process of evolving but of understanding/learning. It's like in math: it might have taken hundreds of years to figure out a certain formula, but it takes only a few minutes to understand it once you have it.
Of course I have noticed in the late 80s and early 90s that there were people flooding into central Europe from the east who were mentally stuck in the 19th century and who brought with them a pretty retarded perspective of humans, especially men, but by now they could and thus should have learned. There are no excuses anymore not to behave.

I do not hate homo-sexuals and more than I hate other types of sinners; I simply try to steer them towards the path to righteousness. Indeed, the Bible teaches us to love everyone, regardless of the errors they may have made. I strictly adhere to that precept; thus, I love my homo-sexual friend.


Hey does anyone here possess a rifle?

(btw, I'm just kidding, I don't want to get banned or anything; I was just stating my extreme disaproval..)

Nice to see an actual realist like Cybach. Idealistically of course the protest would have been perfectly fine, but realistically it was the wrong choice most probably.
The presence of a number of western activists in support of gay rights on the protest was a very foolish move. The Russian people will see it as the West dictating their beliefs onto Russia, not exactly very popular.
I would note that many gay rights groups in Russia also opposed the protest, saying it would be counter productive and lead to a backlash.

Not the time or the place. Sometimes a more gradual approach is needed.

Looks like the USSR should've done a better job of abolishing religion.

Sometimes a more gradual approach is needed.

Stonewall Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Riots)

I didn't know russia allowd gay people...

Stonewall Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Riots)

Did I ever say that such methods never work? No I didn't. Strong action can of course sometimes work, but not always. There is extremely little support at the moment for gay rights activism in Russia. Protesting in Moscow, with Western activists as well, is unlikely to have a beneficial result in the current atmosphere.

So when's the last time you attended a protest where you knew you were likely to be attacked by counter-protestors supported by the police?

Hunm, never.

But I do know I would never scream for help in such a girly way "Please someone protect me! Please someone protect me!" :rolleyes:

Hunm, never.

Who is the cowardly "sissy", then?

But I do know I would never scream for help in such a girly way "Please someone protect me! Please someone protect me!" :rolleyes:

The point is that they did not want to strike back as that would've given the police even more of an excuse not to crack down on the attackers but on the marchers. He yelled "protect me!" to demonstrate that the police - whose job it is to protect people from attacks - refused to do so. This man showed true courage - any idiot can return a punch, this man knew and dared better than to do so, and for you to look down upon him for that shows how much more of a man he is than you'll ever even hope to be.

Who is the cowardly "sissy", then?

That's a rather silly thing to say. If he's never had an opportunity to attend a protest on a view he felt strongly about, he's not a sissy.

That's a rather silly thing to say. If he's never had an opportunity to attend a protest on a view he felt strongly about, he's not a sissy.

No, he'd be blind, and I doubt he is that.

No, he'd be blind, and I doubt he is that.

He could theoretically have someone telling him what's been posted and then typing what he dictates.

Nice to see an actual realist like Cybach. Idealistically of course the protest would have been perfectly fine, but realistically it was the wrong choice most probably.
The presence of a number of western activists in support of gay rights on the protest was a very foolish move. The Russian people will see it as the West dictating their beliefs onto Russia, not exactly very popular.
I would note that many gay rights groups in Russia also opposed the protest, saying it would be counter productive and lead to a backlash.

Not the time or the place. Sometimes a more gradual approach is needed.

Did I ever say that such methods never work? No I didn't. Strong action can of course sometimes work, but not always. There is extremely little support at the moment for gay rights activism in Russia. Protesting in Moscow, with Western activists as well, is unlikely to have a beneficial result in the current atmosphere.


Meh. Read Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail (http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html) and analogize the situation of blacks at that time to that of gays now. You'll see that MLK addresses both the issue of "outside agitators" and "Wait!."

He could theoretically have someone telling him what's been posted and then typing what he dictates.

And I could theoretically be finding your posts in response to me worthwhile.

And I could theoretically be finding your posts in response to me worthwhile.

Yes, but I was trying to be realistic.

Yes, but I was trying to be realistic.

As was I.

You make it sound like after the service, Patriarch Alexey told his flock to bring him blood. I'm sure the violence didn't start like that.
Even if the Patriarch was an absolute asshole, I doubt he would instigate violence, because any figurehead could've seen the bad-press repercussion.

It wasn't the Patriarch - it was one of his priests. He led the neo-nazis in prayer, and then they set out to "Kick some faggot ass" and help create a "Russia free from gays". There is newsfootage of this.

The church backed this incident. They supported the violence and the people shouting "Death to the gays!". They knew exactly what they were doing.

I do not see why this supports their actions. If anything, it makes their actions worse because they are even more backwards than their Western Christian counterparts!

Who says I was defending Orthodoxy? I was just merely stating that it is hardly fair to judge all of the Christian churches by the same standards as we judge the Orthodox church. Orthodoxy has a very different history to any of the western branches of Christianity - comparisons, therefore, are likely to be specious at best.

As was I.

How? It should be practically impossible for anyone to take these posts seriously.

I'm not even taking these posts seriously.

How? It should be practically impossible for anyone to take these posts seriously.

I'm not even taking these posts seriously.

One can take the counterfactuality behind them seriously and point to its realism.

I love my homo-sexual friend.

He is telling the truth...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/DarkSideOfTheSpoon/FAG.jpg

Meh. Read Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail (http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html) and analogize the situation of blacks at that time to that of gays now. You'll see that MLK addresses both the issue of "outside agitators" and "Wait!."

King and the Civil Rights Movement certainly showed how direct action can work superbly, but there are differences. It's true King was seen as an "outside agitator", and was brutally opposed in such states where the movement protested. However, black civil rights had the support of the federal government (reasonably). The federal government overruled racist state laws and enforced new laws in support of black civil rights. In Russia meanwhile, there is basically no support at all for gay civil rights activism among the powers of the state. (Aside from Aleksey Mitrofanov of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia). There is little will for social change like that among Russian politicians.

MLK and the CRM also had supporters. White liberal support certainly helped the gaining of civil rights, and the images of black protesters being beaten up caused shock and the changing of hearts. Compare to Russia, where the vast majority are opposed to gay rights protests or parades, and many will see the arrests of gay protestors as the police maintaining order. I seriously doubt that many Russians hearts will be moved at all by the images of gay activists being beaten up and arrested.

And this is the final problem. MLK wrote of the need to create "tension" and "crisis" to advance justice if necessary. This worked in the United States at that time. But this is the opposite of what most Russian people desire. After the turmoil of the collapse of the USSR and the economic disaster that followed, the Russian people are looking for order above all else. Putin has been providing that order, and that is why he still enjoys very high support among Russians. While it may not be "fair" or "just", it is still the reality.

For all the great achievements of direct action, such as the Stonewall riots, or the Civil Rights Movement, there are also Tiananmen Square failures.
Are the gay protesters actions morally right? Absolutely. Are they likely to be effective? Probably not sadly. I simply worry that their actions may backfire on them.

Western culture has its own long history of homophobia, after all.

And Buggery!

It's like in math: it might have taken hundreds of years to figure out a certain formula, but it takes only a few minutes to understand it once you have it.

I am horrible at complex mathamatics.

How? It should be practically impossible for anyone to take these posts seriously.

I'm not even taking these posts seriously.

I am not even taking jolt seriously.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6695913.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6696329.stm

Does the Moscow Mayor have any justification in banning the protest other than religious beliefs? Should the police give more protection to the protesters? because currently it looks like they are doing bugger all and letting them be beaten up by anti-gay protesters. Thoughts?

I am not a fan of Outrage nor Thatchell but in this I support him 1000%.

Civil disobedience requires that the people you're trying to change have some modicum of compassion, and some sense of morality akin to your own at some level.

Hence, Gandhi managed to succeed with the UK - because Indian protests generated sympathy. Yes, some Indians died at the hands of UK soldiers here and there, but those were viewed as abuses.

MLK also generated sympathy. See the nasty brutish Southern sheriff and his dogs - once again, seen as abuses.

I don't believe for a second that the common Russian sympathizes with the gays in Russia. No compassion means that it will be seen as "the police did the right thing".

Which means that the gays there are fucked.

Which means that the gays there are fucked.

...and not in a good way.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/music024.gif

And I could theoretically be finding your posts in response to me worthwhile.

evidently it was considering you responded :rolleyes: