What's wrong with teaching Abstinence AND Condom use? The problem I have with both sides is that the right obviously focuses more on abstinence, and the left mostly focuses on condom. In terms of HIV (ignoring other ways of contracting the disease since the topic is about sex, willfully), abstinence provides 100% PROTECTION! Condom use provides 99% protection. So, I don't see a problem with teaching abstinence in conjunction with condom use, informing the odds. Then let them decide.
I love how white people think that we "influence" the world. By suggesting this, you are saying these people are incapable of influencing, or even thinking for that matter, for themselves. White people seem to believe we have this hold on Africa (and other parts of the world), religiously, political, and influencially. Basically saying that they do not believe, rule, or influence over anything for themselves. Her racism is HIDDEN, but it is there nonetheless.
"I love how white people think that we "influence" the world."
I find your statement ridiculous. Anyone can "influence" anything... but there's a definitive (and in your case, unaddressed) difference between influence and manipulation/control... which is what you seem to be implying, but don't actually connect/state.
@ImmortalSynn It depends on how broad the definition is for the words influence and manipulation. To influence something IS to manipulate it, be it beneficial or not. And I fail to see how only 17% of the world's population (depending on who you consider "white" as it seems to be the only white americans she is addressing here) can have such a profound influence on the rest of the world without linking it to some kind of superiority. She is a racist, very subtle, but a racist.
@ImmortalSynn Money? Really dude...lol, you are talking about the same printed paper that is made of dead trees? Money only works when someone is regulating the RESOURCES (Food, water, metals to build things with etc.) Africa has plenty of resources on it's own, it does not need the Europeans help. Outside of Europe, the euro doesn't mean a thing, same with the dollar in regards to America. Other countries CHOOSE to let us "convert" to their currency with our own. Africa relies on no one.
@ImmortalSynn You actually believe specially designed PAPER means anything? Stacks of money doesn't mean shit unless people VOLUNTARILY believe it does. It is not my, nor anyone else's, fault if people willingly believe American paper holds more value over the resources that are literally BENEATH their feet. The only power America and Europe have over Africa is what the African governments LET them have. I have caps certain terms and can give you their definitions upon request, thank you. :)
"You actually believe specially designed PAPER means anything?"
Nope. Also what I have trouble believing is that you're so inexperienced as to lack the ability to separate physical tender (i.e.) from the concept of currency; yet you persist in this ridiculous argument.
33% if the funding can only be used for abstinence...
yeah and? its a third of the resources used on one of the three possible methods, sounds fair to me, i dont see where is the problem unless they cut other methods below 33%
First It was the blacks, then the jews, then latinos, then the muslims and now the gays. Asians, you better watch out cause, you probably are next... Now at the risk of sounding racist (what i'm not) white people have never been persecuted like all the others, have they?
if you really knew jesus.you would support this bill.jesus hates faggots.but the fake christians now say that sin is ok and sodomy is fine when clearly its written in the bible that is it not.everything is the love of jesus this the love of jesus that.jesus is love but he's also a consuming fire.and jesus loves the sinner but hates sin.and homosexuality is sin.so stop kidding yourself before you find yourself in hell with all the rest of the homos.
@junyto12 Glad you left this inbred's comment on here, ImmortalSynn. Serves to show us what kind of backwoods rubes support this kind of legislation. If it can be called such. And coming from a Mississippian, that's sayin' sumthin'!
Just to re-emphasize... I don't block comments unless they're 1) off-topic or 2) full of pointless profanity. Those are the only two reasons, as they detract from others wanting to post here.
Anything else goes, regardless as to how repugnant I might think it is.
"According to the author of the bill, David Bahati, “'the pro-gays have made the world believe that whoever will be found guilty of getting involved in homosexuality will be sentenced to death. No. Only when an adult forces a child or someone under the age of 18 into homosexuality, that is where the death penalty should apply.'"
Regardless of whether the UN Human Rights declaration authorizes it, member states the world over routinely gloss over, take exception to, and defy the UN's little proclamations.
US President Bush rejected some of the "Human Rights" accords because they (1) favor abortion rights and (2) deny 17 year olds military service.
Many nations criminalize what we don't, sometimes to excess, and if Uganda commits excess here then so be it, certainly not casus belli.
It is sad to see the Christian church bringing about its own demise. There are some good people in Christianity but the politically vocal ones have ruined it for everyone.
God bless Uganda for doing God's work.All gays should be arrested not married.All homosexuals desrve the death penalty,Praise God.God bless George Bush and the Godly and righteous republicans.
this is why i absolutely despise christians. they talk about peace and love and then support a bill that would put a death sentence on being gay. and those guys are idiots. studies have shown again and again abstinence only does not work
In Uganda, and in many other places in the world, HIV/AIDS is so widespread that you will have abstinence OR you will have pestilence. There ain't no third direction.
@Azrael666Azazel I understand your anger because of the connection between this HEINOUS bill and Christianity, but I assure you that they do NOT represent those of us who really know the character of God through Jesus Christ. This is simply religious fanaticism at its HIGHEST levels!!!
And they think the antichrist will pretend to be christian? I don't think the antichrist if there was one would kill his image like that. You'd have to be crazy to associate yourself with them evangelicals. They're a threat to humanity
well ur not christian ... sorry to say that read the bible more often ... im not religious altho catholic , i dont believe in a man fuckin a man in the ass , and vise versa with women ( no matter how sexy lol) but .... come on dont claim what ur not ... do u believe when u die u go RIGHT to heaven ... or hell .. get back to me on that and ill give you the bible verse that proves u wrong :)
so if you don't believe women should be out to death for being in church during the period, or men for eating shellfish... then by the "brilliant" logic you just exhibited, "ur not Christian." It's right there in Leviticus.
fuck i had a huge good argument back but i was WAYYY over the word count :( but the multi million dollar churches didnt erect from the hand of jesus ... it was the CHARITY church ... gathereing ppls money scaring them in to what most ppl are today ... u have an opinion i aswell have one ... lol i dont wanna jesus beef ... i just get so confused with this stuff ... were told to not worship false idols and statues ... but i swear thats what we do ? i never met god ... have u ?
@jaymackcreations It"s truly amazing that you really can encounter "Christians" like you out in the real world. There is no line item veto of Leviticus in the New Testament... The NT passages in which it's claimed that Jesus says it's no longer an abomination to wear cloth of 2 materials, or sleep in the same bed as a woman who's menstruating, or even to eat bacon, fail to single out the ones you do feel strongly about.
And know your verses if you claim to be ready to quote them. FFS.
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God.
3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.
4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God.
5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
Perhaps a few struggling readers care whether Leviticus was directed at "Christians". It wasn't; it was directed at "Israelites."
Leviticus 20:13 reads thusly: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Christians were not commanded to deal harshly with active homosexuals -- mind you, abominations to God are still abominations
...so shellfish, polyester blends, and women who appear in the presence of religious leaders while on their period; according to that book and chapter of the Old Testament. Yet, most Christians (and many Jews) willfully disregard those, so what reason would you hold this one to some manner of elevated status-- other than the desire to express your own prejudice? I'd like to know your answer.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Shellfish, saith the Bible, is not for the Israelites (and this was before scientific tests for mercury). Fine. So shellfish is an abomination (detestable) to them.
I don't think "Christian" requires an adjective, if so certainly not "compassionate."
I don't think I like what has been said and done in the name of "compassionate" Christianity.
Uganda has already given us Idi Amin Dada, who sent out death squads to murder Christians in the 1970s.
Based on advice from a dear friend, I suspect that Uganda is bluffing and they aren't really going to hurt anyone, so let's give them 12 years and 14 security resolutions before taking any action.
These folks in Uganda deserve to have their own country and laws. I think they have worded their laws correctly - according to current law, people should be punished for unnatural sexual activity, not for "the crime of being gay."
So if you're in Uganda -- do be careful --- because your mind belongs to you, but not your ass!
Unfortunately for that take, the application of such a law (or more specifically, the execution of the penalties applied therefrom) can quite easily be considered a violation Jus Cogens, and thus making it in violation of international law, and potentially constituting genocide.
The assertion that the United Nations would rise up in a giant ball of flaming secular humanism and physically prohibit Uganda from enforcing gay crime laws is of course absurdist.
No one seems to have noticed that gay crime laws are already on the books, but they currently max out at "life imprisonment" and not "death" in Uganda, and something tells me that one more teensy weensy capital punishment law for one more teensy weensy country isn't going to rattle the folks much.
"The assertion that the United Nations would rise up in a giant ball of flaming secular humanism and physically prohibit Uganda from enforcing gay crime laws is of course absurdist."
...which might be why YOU'RE the first and only one here, to thus far make it. I haven't said a word about the U.N., nor has anyone else.
The United Nations (though I think very little of them or of their track record) is basically the only hope you've got if you think that force must be used to preserve the lives of innocent homosexuals in Uganda.
People may war over land, or gold, or oil, or religion, or even possibly free speech, but I doubt you will move any armies against Uganda no matter how many laws they pass or how many gays they catch.
"The United Nations is basically the only hope you've got if you think that force must be used "
How do you come to that conclusion, considering that the UN does not now (nor has it ever) commanded a standing army nor the ability to administer militaristic force?
IMHO the idea that the "international community" does or should have some type of review over a criminal or civil action taken within the borders of a nation is specious at best.
Do I pledge allegiance to North America? To the UN or the "World Council?" I most assuredly do not... and if my state happens to exceed the peremptory norm and consider it a capital offense to rape a 6-year old, I don't want the Russians or the Chinese or the Zimbabweans to have veto powers.
"Jus cogens" has become your mantra in this matter.
Uganda has criminalized sex outside the order of nature now for generations, but in the struggle for free genitals, the butcher's bill is very very high.
In 2007, AIDS claimed the lives of 77,000 people in Uganda... a rate 30 times higher than the USA.
The activists and the chatter groups think it's "genocide" if Uganda enacts a death penalty.
People who are on the ground know there already is a death penalty.
"In 2007, AIDS claimed the lives of 77,000 people in Uganda... a rate 30 times higher than the USA."
...Are you disingenuously attempting to imply that that's primarily due to the presence/activities of gay people there, when they constitute a mere fraction of the spread in that area? If not, what's your point in bringing it up?
If you are going to criticize another country's policies, does it not occur to you to read more about that country? Did you know that in 2001, Uganda reported that 530,000 of its residents already have HIV/AIDS?
The Bahati bill (also current law) says, "outside the order of nature." - you may or may not infer 'gay' from that -- but most HIV probably spreads to heterosexuals in Africa, especially if 4% (or ~more~) of that population already has HIV/AIDS but 3% are gay.,
"does it not occur to you to read more about that country?"
Does it not occur to you that before asking such a snippety question, you should first know the actual extent OF that person's grasp on the subject at hand?
UNAIDS/WHO Working Group on Global HIV/AIDS and STI Surveillance reports Uganda's current HIV rate reports 5.4% of the current population as living with HIV, with the highest transmission being MTCT.
And 3% of the population gay? Hmm, substantiate that please.
For the benefit of Dear Reader, I will note that MTCT means "mother to child transmission,"
"There are an estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in Uganda, which includes 120,000 children.. An estimated 61,000 people died from AIDS in 2008 and 1.2 million children have been orphaned by Uganda's devastating epidemic.."
ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms) helped reduced the rate from 15% to 5%.
I defer to the Reader as to whether MTCT is truly #1 in Uganda.
Defer all you want, what more authoritative source are they going to find than that?
And if any attempt of yours to use the number of people there currently living with HIV as an attempt to refuse such, is rather short-sighted, as it apparently ignores the fact that MTC**TRANSMISSION** is still most common, but that many of those children... don't last very long... to put it lightly, thus not contributing much to the "currently living" numbers.
Also MTCT does not end with childbirth. The mother can pass HIV to the child through breastfeeding, and this is a special risk for lower-income countries. It is a special risk for women who refuse testing for HIV.
Now, folks, please observe that neither ImmortalSynn nor I want anyone to contract HIV/AIDS, and even though we think of each other as horrible monsters we would both be happier if there were no such thing as HIV.
"what more authoritative source are they going to find than that?"
I get a little suspicious about reports that are as thorough and multi-faceted as this one, when for some bizarre reason cannot allow the word "homosexual" or "gay" to pass through spellcheck.
Know this: MSM or men having sex with men is not insignificant to AIDS.
"Overall in Africa, men who have sex with men are almost 4 times more likely to be HIV positive than the general population."
Statistically speaking, if 4% of the population is infected and 3% of the population is gay then not all of the infected people are gay.
The Reader should not infer from the remark that a sexual orientation census has been taken in Uganda, nor that such number is 3% or is near 3%.
Also, please note that ImmortalSynn is not suggesting male-male intercourse with strangers in concentrated centers is a safe practice in the age of HIV/AIDS. He knows better than to say that.
"And 3% of the population gay? Hmm, substantiate that please."
Did you miss that the first time? Just saying that some **unnamed and unsourced** "sexual orientation census" (whatever the heck that's supposed to be) was taken does NOT suffice.
For some reason, you want to me to concede that I don't know how many people in Uganda are gay... something nobody knows in any precise kind of way, because people don't always tell the truth. Sometimes people lie to themselves.
In the USA, our own scientists have told us for 25 years, HIV/AIDS is going to burst outside of the gay community and become a mostly hetero phenom "as it is in Africa." But it never happened that way. There are many seemingly-logical explanations.
The surges that are occurring among minorities in certain cities in the USA are real and they are threatening.
But if researchers in Africa can't say gay and can't say homosexual, and can't say this or that, pretty soon the fact that MSM AIDS rates in Africa are enormous.becomes buried deep in the stats. I think there is a kind of homophobia-phobia, if you will, and there's a health emergency going on here.
The love that dares not speak its name can kill you dead.
First, I do not have homophobia-phobia. I'm not going to gloss over the excesses of promiscuous gay men because of the excesses of promiscuous straight men and women and IV drug users vis-a-vis HIV/AIDS transmission.
Second, I do not have racism racism. I don't believe that only whites can be racist and it's a sham to raise race in this kind of forum. Shame on those who say that whites don't care about HIV transmission among minorities.
"Shame on those who say that whites don't care about HIV transmission among minorities."
...except for the cases when some of them, particularly those in power, don't. Remember, that sack o' shit Reagan is not on record as even accepting a briefing on the AIDS crisis until 1983, when Lorraine DeSantis (the first non-prostitute White woman known to have the affliction) died. Even then, he never publicly addressed it until 1986, much less DID anything.
(1) US President Obama's lineage is Luo (from Kenya; many Ugandans are also Luos.) He is an anti-colonialist with communist ideology similar to his father. Mark my words, Obama won't lift to finger to compel Uganda to do anything and certainly won't roll tanks.
(2) The UN doesn't presently command a standing army, but in the future it may. The shocks of the past 20 years (Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Barack Obama) have taught us how quickly a crisis can begin.
One of the reasons I do a better job of answering your questions than you do of questioning my answers, is, I actually do some research.
When I say that Louisiana ratified the 19th Amendment on June 11, 1970, I have checked that fact. When you reply, "Bullshit," that's just your automatic gainsaying of any statement one happens to make. Other critiques include witticisms such as "idiocy," "two drops o' dogshit," "in your little mind," and the ever-so-snappy "who cares."
Usually because each one of those are accurate to the situation at hand.
Any research you actually fool yourself into thinking formulations substantiation is worthless without citation. Your typical MO is to restate what you've been challenged on, as if repeating it multiple times is going to somehow render it unchallengeable. What sources have you put forth (that can't just as easily be refuted with others) to any given issue?
Such a "restatement," I think, is best directed towards the Reader, who may better receive the information if it is better presented.
Conversely, when you use your Special Words, the Reader is oft left to conclude possibly that you don't counter with an argument because you either don't have an argument or don't care to bring one.
"Bullshit," "dogshit." or "dumbfuck," might be your generation's version of that so-refined John Travolta's "up your nose with a rubber hose."
Perhaps it would be, if I left it at that... but rare. I usually just remind you that a pointless/unsubstantiated/repeated claim is often just that, bullshit by a dumbfuck.
Me: "The UN doesn't presently command a standing army, but in the future it may."
You: "And you base that on ___?"
I base that several articles I examined under the topic, Should The UN Have A Standing Army?
In some articles, celebrities or pinheads debate whether the UN should have a standing army. In others, it is reportedly being discussed among various governments or UN organs that there should be a UN standing army. One post cites a US President (guess who).
Although the sense of camaraderie shown me is underwhelming, it was my decision early on not to flood with URLs, preferring instead to leave my sourcing claims to Dear Reader as an exercise.
The Reader is also left to wonder -- does the Moderator request attribution in a sincere search for fact and truth, or does he propose a common scheme, a battle of sourcing to achieve via ad nauseum a victory he perhaps could not win through logic?
Common sense should be able to tell you the answer to that, considering that I'll name my source whenever requested, and often when not... sorta like I just did with the Uganda percentage. Think dude, think.
In the future, the United Nations may command a standing army.
At present, with total expenditures in the small number of billions (USD) per year, the UN could not afford anything approaching a modern or effective army. But times change.
What sort of conflict would have broad Security Council agreement? Russia, China, and the USA, disagree on so much. But s progressive future USA may cede major duties, taxes, and powers to the UN -- believing only it should act.
Do you have the FAINTEST idea the amount of overturn/rewriting of international law that'd have to be done to facilitate thus? Combine that with the veto power of several countries who'd never stand for it, and that's almost akin to worrying about a lightning strike!
Where could the UN derive its tax base? Could it, for example, "own" international waters, international airspace, Antarctica, or other resources that other nations don't currently claim?
Could the UN or some derivative gradually take over USA missions in South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, England, and other countries the USA is spending many billions per year to defend?
I think Bush 43 has ~already~ become more popular, as we approach the halftime on Obama's term.
He couldn't help but be... Obama is such a disaster in so many ways.
This Obama is easily the worst President of my lifetime, and I cannot see how he will eke above Buchanan to avoid being the worst President ever. Hopefully, and this is not yet certain, with a check and balance this fall, there can be some restraint on this guy (a la Bill Clinton) but we shall see.
I hate to break this to you, but in most Western countries, if you're of ANY orientation and intentionally give HIV to ANYONE, you're a murderer.
How you somehow manage to pin this onto gays diddling children, when the overwhelming majority of child molesters are straight males, and the overwhelming majority of HIV infections in Africa is via HETEROsexual intercourse... is anyone's guess.
Israelis may (more or less accurately) be described as a religious, ethnic, racial, or national group, any of which would fall within the definition of a group which when singled out for destruction by an authority, would constitute "genocide."
People who collect stamps are a group, but rounding them up and killing them, though morally wrong, is not genocide.
Bank robbers, looters, and certain fleeing suspects, are often shot on sight without genocidal intent.
Regardless what we may think of Uganda for contemplating this type of law, and regardless our personal opinion of homosexuals - homosexuals are neither a religious, ethnic, racial, or national group and therefore Uganda cannot commit "genocide" by singling them out for destruction.
Oh yeah, then what textbook would THAT be? Texas school board anyone?
...because when last I checked, these sorta things were defined by legal precedent-- and as stated, Class in Culture have been used in the legal process from everything from Nuremburg, to the Sudan crisis, to 1994 Rwanda, to the Niger Delta issue.
"How ironic that you consider the act of criminalizing a crime against nature to be a crime against humanity. "
How in your idiot assessment is that ironic, considering that the (essentially defunct) application of "crime against nature" has been so ridiculously applied, as to constitute oral or (in the case of at least one state) non-missionary sex between even a husband and wife?
“Any person who— (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; (b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.”
But for the he's and she's, I understand this has been the law in Uganda for 60 years.
@ImmortalSynn ALL of those things are groups that gays fall into. Gays are not just GAYS. They're not some seperate group. They're people like you and me, and they are religious or not, they have different ethnic and racial backgrounds like anyone else, and they can fall in any class, just like EVERYONE ELSE. They're people made up of all kinds of groups, not JUST homosexuels
The law, on the face of it, is issued correctly because it is based on action and not thought. Those of you who believe that gay is "who you are" not "what you do" should be fine with this.
Grasping another man by the buttocks and penetrating him anally does not give one status, "culture," or "class."
Why should it?
What is so classy and cultural about this or any other sexual rubric, that it requires not just national but global affirmation -- backed by armies?
because doing to position as such is a ridiculously unrealistic expectation. The exact same injustice as in 1930s Russia: okay to have religion, but not pray or offer any demonstration/symbol of religious piety. Yeah, that makes sense.
I'm supposed to watch the Rachel Maddow video, read the comments, and feel somehow inferior in that I basically don't give a darn whether Uganda or whatever country executes or simply imprisons their gays.
Uganda's present law permits life imprisonment for serial offenders. That's been the law since 1960, and if they want to pass the Bahati bill, that's fine with me. The public is showing broad support for the bill.
...so tell me, would you feel the same about societies that chose to do the same thing to Christians for "serial offenses" of congregation, and invocation of religious dogma?
Remember, not to long ago, that was quite common in the Soviet bloc and many parts of Asia.
"It is not immoral for the state to condemn and/or repress immorality."
Which is, in and of itself, blatant idiocy... seeing that morality is not only completely subjective, but also malleable, thus allowing it to be used as a violation of rights in whatever means dictated by popular opinion. History shows a myriad of such examples.
Voting machines in Nevada are tipped towards Reid; the maintenance contract is held by SEIU.
1995 Flashback: Poland doesn't have a Communist Party, and the USA does. (Bonus: as of 2002, Poland *does* have a Communist Party!)
NASA now plans to send astronauts to Mars ~permanently~ because it's cheaper to colonize Mars than bring 'em home. Martians we can't send home include Jerry Brown who is favored to win the Governor's race in California.
In Uganda gay marriage is unconstitutional, and in the USA our President is Barack Hussein Obama.
Russia has a 13% flat income tax - while President Obama says rates on the rich have got to go up.
With some cajoling, President Obama has convinced the Russians to send troops ~into~ Afghanistan (to help train the Afghan army) while Obama plans for the USA to leave.
Gentle Reader has been very patient, I think, with your lackluster claim that Uganda's Bahati bill would constitute genocide because practicing homosexuals are a "Culture," or a "Class."
One would think that striking Uganda's law in its entirety and not just the new capital punishment aspect of it, would be the minimum relief sought in any action brought on behalf of the plantiff group.
The closest thing to a definition I found was, "a person who is openly approving of homosexuality and is engaged in it."
I would think that the plaintiff class, in an action at law potentially arising from the Bahati bill could become law in Uganda, would be comprised of these people.
Of course, there are many other ways to populate such a class. Perhaps every gay. lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered, two-spirited, queer, or questioning person is a member.
"I suggest that my response DOES INDEED address your question, properly and fully, for the purpose of the law."
Are you kidding me with this? it falls flat on its face. By that definition, the drunk straight twits in a GirlsGoneWild video are "practicing homosexuals." Actors simulating a gay kiss in a movie would be, by the pathetically loose definition you just provided, "practicing homosexuality." Where do you dig up this tripe???
The GGW twits, the "gay kiss" actors. and so forth, commit acts that, as I understand it, are already forbidden under present law in Uganda.
Proposed legislation to elevate the morality statute does not address this particular conduct. It is already criminal, and it would remain criminal.
Although I don't think that any society should change its laws retroactively, I do respect Uganda's authority to control local activities which are indecent, immoral, or dangerous.
The international community cannot allow this bill to become law. Uganda is promoting genocide, as did Hitler. Those conservative senators with ties to the African Nation should be investigated and held accountable if their actions prompted such a legislation.
Part of the compact of "genocide," is that by decimation, the actor causes or intends to cause the extinction of the group. And yet in "genocide," you have chosen a group which unlike most others, does not propogate. Gays simply do not breed gays, and if every gay person disappeared tomorrow (beamed, let's say, aboard huge starships and transported to distant star systems) then in 100 years, gays would still exist and in similar proportions to today. Some genocide.
Wow, I've almost missed your intense manner of lunacy. Almost.
I guess by your astonishing (lack of) logic.... killing non-ethnic Jews would be "some genocide" too, since in theory they can be replaced by means other than breeding as well. You fucking idiot, lol.
Gays do not breed gays. Gay is not a religion -- and before you say it, yes, I know about the Metropolitan Community Church. Now, if it's the whole "gay community" thing that you hold sacrosanct -- and this is where the foot is desperately trying the door -- then you ascribe community values upon the whole of gaydom itself, and you apparently demand that said values are beyond judgment.
You think Judaism would rise again from nought? You'd have much better odds with gays.
Your seeming inability to learn not to (rampantly!) assume, is ASTONISHING to me!
**I** hold the concept of a "gay community" to be sacrosanct?? Well, that's certainly interesting, considering that I don't even believe such a thing to exist! LOL. Idiot.
Thus the "if"; however, I have investigated (somewhat) the very strange idea of culture as community. I really don't know how we get to group rights, the mystical-mythical GLBT human rights platform, if we don't believe that they constitute a community.
"The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart." (1 Kings 10:24)
Whether Uganda or the USA, whether constitutional republic or dictatorship, society's arguments quickly become too numerous for a sole executive. Guidance for proper living has been supplied by religion (Exodus 20) and the state (Hammurabi) for thousands of years now.
First, to say that an idea is good because it's new is itself a fallacy... it's an appeal to novelty.
Second, "any modern society's standards" ("appalled" by standards of long ago) are themselves malleable. "An eye for an eye" sounds brutal; one is left to wonder whether Nicole Simpson, Caylee Anthony, and Natalie Holloway would be alive today if justice were certain, swift. and brutal.
"one is left to wonder whether Nicole Simpson, Caylee Anthony, and Natalie Holloway would be alive today if justice were certain, swift. and brutal."
That makes even LESS sense than your usual idiotic rambling.... i.e., what requirement would there be for *justice* were those people not killed/missing in the first place-- and thus what would an eye4eye scenario have to do with a crime that hadn't yet happened?
In the OJ Simpson debacle, the public saw what it perceived as a celebrity who was able to purchase his freedom with slick "Dream Team" attorneys. Joran van der Sloot is likewise seen as a young man with a prominent father who promptly dummied up and used the legal system to escape murder charges. Are we supposed to just accept that Casey Anthony was too bombed to function and leave it at that? Nicole, Caylee, and Natalie were the innocent ones here. The legal systems failed them (and us).
Some of us still believe that punishment deters crime -- that would-be criminals actually sometimes think about the consequences of their actions and have the power to do, or not do, a wicked thing. For those of us who still believe in deterrence, we want prison life to be hard; we want prison food to be bland; we want prison cells to be spartan and not particularly comfortable. We want people to hate prison and avoid committing the crimes that would send them there.
Third, "appalling" is an appeal to public sentiment. It is mallum in se. People are appalled because they know it's wrong, not just some technicality. Now, do we believe that most Ugandans want to upgrade their morality law? Or do we believe that most want to leave it the same?
R-Madd and her cadre (nodding to you) would prefer that the morality statute be removed in toto; gone, all of it. Very, very few Ugandans want that, so talk of "standards" works against you.
Have you actually sat back READ the first sentence you wrote there, after completing the rest of that droll musing? You whine about appealing to public sentiment as a fallacy, yet spend the rest of the post justifying inhumane behavior because of majority support. Hypocrisy in less than a paragraph.
It is true that Ugandans generally consider homosex to be taboo, but these activities are not solo; these activities themselves are considered inhumane.
Dear Reader should not equate "logical fallacies," which are formal, with political errors, which are in the purview of the common people in the United States and many other nations who are of republican government.
I can identify "appalling" as an appeal to public sentiment which is officially a fallacy -- in an argument this means the speaker is begging the audience for what he cannot prove. But what of law? Is law to be derived by science with no emotion? Unworkable!
Agriculture occupies a lot of land, resources, and roughly a billion people are engaged in it. It isn't much fun; but it is something man will do as long as he eats. In this fashion, I will suggest that politics is usually maddening, nauseating, or boring; it consumes much and produces little; but we must have the fruits of politics even if we don't particularly like them. To bring order is to repress freedom. To protect the weak is to bind the strong. Balance, and they will criticize that.
There is no fallacy, the slippery slope argument has been shown to be true time and time again. Just saying it is false does not make it so. One thing I've discovered with Democrats is that if you give them an inch they will try to take a mile, no matter how much they try to deny it beforehand.
LEGAL FALLACY, fool. That's all that really matters, or is even applicable in situations such as this. Particularly when argued in a social context, seeing as ANY alteration of a status quo can/will be viewed as such by at least ~some~ group or demographic.
But a judiciary and legislative fallacy it is indeed; it failed as an argument against desegregation, against women's suffrage, and it eventually will against gay rights.
It never failed. I'm not saying that I agreed with desegregation or the way social groups were treated, but those who were against it were right to suspect that the rest of us wanted to make them equal. There is no fallacy regarding the slippery slope argument.
It doesn't matter how many times I have to say it before it sinks into your head or how many times you deny it, it IS true. Especially with democrats.
I'm well aware that the nature of social progress itself lends credence to the fears of Regressives. I'm not now, nor have I ever in this thread, argued against that.
What you appeared to miss, is that I've now multiple times informed you that the notion of slipper slope, is now and in the past, a LEGAL (L-E-G-A-L, as in "doesn't stand up as an argument of merit in court") fallacy. History more than proves it.
If you do not argue with the nature of social "progress" (more like degradation) then you understand the moral slippery slope argument. The fact that you can see it happening, and recognize it "lends credence" to the fears of regressives means you understand the concept!
The Laws that are made only reflect this. In the 1920's, nobody would even think to commit a crime as heinous as abortion, now it is legal. That is just one example.
I'm aware of the (a)moral argument; I'm saying that THAT argument isn't worth 2 drops o' dogshit because morality is entirely subjective. Only the legal argument, within which it's a fallacy, holds
"a crime as heinous as abortion"
Ah yes: they could only just legally beat women to within an inch of their life, then terrorize entire ethnic communities with as much immunity as impunity. Long as they weren't killing kids that nobody wants, it's all good, right?
Morality is not subjective, it is factual. And the moral slippery slope argument impacts people's view of morality which in turn affects the lawmaking process. THAT is how it is relevant. There is no fallacy.
I never said beating women was right or that terrorizing ethnic communities was ok. Quote me the specific sentence I used that gave you that impression. All I said was abortion is a heinous crime.
...are you kidding me with this. There's barely any issue on earth MORE relative than the nature/constitution of morality!
P.S..
I'll address your email when I gain access to my comp. No way I'm going to reply to something of that length from my phone. I'd prefer you to keep the commentary here, thanks.
Morality IS factual for those of us with a moral center. Some people may need to deliberate whether murder is wrong when they go in for an abortion. Some people may need to decide if cheating is wrong when illegally crossing the border. But there is a word for those people, and it is idiots.
My four year old knows the difference between right and wrong, and I tend to expect others to as well. If you think morality is subjective, then like many others,you don't have any morals to begin with
Think about what you're actually saying, a "moral center" can be, and of course *is*, EXTREMELY relative.
Take an Agnostic feminist and an orthodox Pentacostal woman, and ask each to give their opinion on morality vis-a-vis women: care to argue that it wouldn't be inherently different at the core?
How about we take a Western Buddhist and a Wahabi, and ask them what constitutes morality; same concept...
A moral center is only relative in the minds of those who do not have one. The Agnostic feminist possesses no moral center because she is not Christian. Same with the Buddhist. And I have no idea what a Wahabi is, some other newfangled false religion?
Ah, so only Christians are inherent to morality? Congrats on just blowing any credence you could've POSSIBLY had, clear outta the water! :)
"And I have no idea what a Wahabi is"
Which is but yet another display of your massive ignorance at work. Sad, because you should know of them well, as the Far-Right loves to remind everyone else how much Wahabis want to kill us, then exploit that fear for their own flagrant purposes.
I take it as a precursor to common sense that only Christians have a moral center for you cannot have a moral center and follow a false religion. That doesn't even make sense.
And I openly stated I don't know what a Wahabi is, so don't accuse me of ignorance. I doubt anyone is familiar with every social group on the planet. You say Wahabis want to kill us? Use your next post to explain to me who they are.
And then there are those who would laugh at the notion of a "false religion" as well as those who take all religions as false. Y'see, it's that very difference in perspective, that we call "SUBJECTIVITY"... you know, the whole genesis of this conversation? LOL
That, and why should I not highlight your own ignorance when you yourself admitted to it?
Also, instead of taking the Beck-esque approach of waiting to be told what something is... why not do the research, and FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF?
Laughter is a response more commonly associated with those who prefer to worship false religions and rebel against God. This has nothing to do with perspective or subjectivity, if you die without Christ as your Savior, it won't matter what your perspective is, you will go to Hell.
I never admitted ignorance, I said I don't know what Wahabis are. Since you brought it up, it is YOUR responsibility to answer a simple request in telling me what they are and why they're relevant.
That, and I have no responsibility to you whatsoever. I do, however, find it ASTONISHING that nearly 3 hours after admitting your own ignorance, you're STILL WAITING TO HAVE INFORMATION DICTATED to you!! I didn't really fathom how the likes of Limbaugh and Beck have such a stranglehold on the mentality of the Far Right, until right now. Truly amazing!
What is so priceless about that? I don't know what Wahabis are. Do you know what the acronym TOCSY stands for in the realm of NMR theory? Probably not. Does that make us ignorant people for not knowing random factoids having nothing to do with the present discussion?
You brought them up, so explain to me why their relevant. The only ignorant one here is the one claiming I've admitted to something I haven't. Can you not read?
What's priceless is the irony... what you just said, was equivalent to saying "I'm not deaf, I just can't hear at all"
Um, yeah... that's total correlation spectroscopy, not difficult at all. Next (idiotic) question?
I can read quite well thanks. But this is hilarious-- all you've managed to show me is that you don't even understand the etymology of the word "ignorance", so I'm having some fun with it... sue me.
What's wrong with teaching Abstinence AND Condom use? The problem I have with both sides is that the right obviously focuses more on abstinence, and the left mostly focuses on condom. In terms of HIV (ignoring other ways of contracting the disease since the topic is about sex, willfully), abstinence provides 100% PROTECTION! Condom use provides 99% protection. So, I don't see a problem with teaching abstinence in conjunction with condom use, informing the odds. Then let them decide.
mash251 1 week ago
I love how white people think that we "influence" the world. By suggesting this, you are saying these people are incapable of influencing, or even thinking for that matter, for themselves. White people seem to believe we have this hold on Africa (and other parts of the world), religiously, political, and influencially. Basically saying that they do not believe, rule, or influence over anything for themselves. Her racism is HIDDEN, but it is there nonetheless.
TheLonePantheist 3 weeks ago
@TheLonePantheist
"I love how white people think that we "influence" the world."
I find your statement ridiculous. Anyone can "influence" anything... but there's a definitive (and in your case, unaddressed) difference between influence and manipulation/control... which is what you seem to be implying, but don't actually connect/state.
ImmortalSynn 3 weeks ago
@ImmortalSynn It depends on how broad the definition is for the words influence and manipulation. To influence something IS to manipulate it, be it beneficial or not. And I fail to see how only 17% of the world's population (depending on who you consider "white" as it seems to be the only white americans she is addressing here) can have such a profound influence on the rest of the world without linking it to some kind of superiority. She is a racist, very subtle, but a racist.
TheLonePantheist 2 weeks ago
@TheLonePantheist
"And I fail to see how only 17% of the world's population can have such a profound influence on the rest of the world"
...and that's a shortcoming on YOUR end. lol
You're forgetting the very basic (not to mention, incredibly simple to figure out) fact that:
money = power = influence = manipulation.
Now tell me, what percentage of world capital is controlled by western Whites? Take your time, I'll wait.
ImmortalSynn 2 weeks ago
@ImmortalSynn Money? Really dude...lol, you are talking about the same printed paper that is made of dead trees? Money only works when someone is regulating the RESOURCES (Food, water, metals to build things with etc.) Africa has plenty of resources on it's own, it does not need the Europeans help. Outside of Europe, the euro doesn't mean a thing, same with the dollar in regards to America. Other countries CHOOSE to let us "convert" to their currency with our own. Africa relies on no one.
TheLonePantheist 2 weeks ago
@TheLonePantheist
...and you ACTUALLY believe that manner of drivel??
ImmortalSynn 2 weeks ago
@ImmortalSynn You actually believe specially designed PAPER means anything? Stacks of money doesn't mean shit unless people VOLUNTARILY believe it does. It is not my, nor anyone else's, fault if people willingly believe American paper holds more value over the resources that are literally BENEATH their feet. The only power America and Europe have over Africa is what the African governments LET them have. I have caps certain terms and can give you their definitions upon request, thank you. :)
TheLonePantheist 2 weeks ago
@TheLonePantheist
"You actually believe specially designed PAPER means anything?"
Nope. Also what I have trouble believing is that you're so inexperienced as to lack the ability to separate physical tender (i.e.) from the concept of currency; yet you persist in this ridiculous argument.
ImmortalSynn 2 weeks ago
@Obamaluke
THAT, is the limit of your wit?? *tisk*
ImmortalSynn 2 months ago
@Obamaluke
That's pretty much the most idiotic pair of statements I've seen on this thread all year. Congrats.
ImmortalSynn 2 months ago 2
33% if the funding can only be used for abstinence...
yeah and? its a third of the resources used on one of the three possible methods, sounds fair to me, i dont see where is the problem unless they cut other methods below 33%
niinja2 7 months ago
actually the best method for reducing aids in uganda was B = be faithful
studies have shown that condoms were effective as much as abstinence, but not effective enough.
people simply do not remain abstinent more then a few years and they dont use condoms sufficiently for a number of reasons.
niinja2 7 months ago
people who support this anti-Gay laws are pathetic sick idiots.
Metasand 9 months ago
First It was the blacks, then the jews, then latinos, then the muslims and now the gays. Asians, you better watch out cause, you probably are next... Now at the risk of sounding racist (what i'm not) white people have never been persecuted like all the others, have they?
Dave1986KKB 10 months ago
if you really knew jesus.you would support this bill.jesus hates faggots.but the fake christians now say that sin is ok and sodomy is fine when clearly its written in the bible that is it not.everything is the love of jesus this the love of jesus that.jesus is love but he's also a consuming fire.and jesus loves the sinner but hates sin.and homosexuality is sin.so stop kidding yourself before you find yourself in hell with all the rest of the homos.
junyto12 10 months ago
@junyto12
"if you really knew jesus.you would support this bill."
Uh huh, sure... because his whole "whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me" statement REALLLY fits in with that law, right?
Who are YOU trying to kid? lol
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@junyto12 Glad you left this inbred's comment on here, ImmortalSynn. Serves to show us what kind of backwoods rubes support this kind of legislation. If it can be called such. And coming from a Mississippian, that's sayin' sumthin'!
kaylasdaddy55 8 months ago
@kaylasdaddy55
Just to re-emphasize... I don't block comments unless they're 1) off-topic or 2) full of pointless profanity. Those are the only two reasons, as they detract from others wanting to post here.
Anything else goes, regardless as to how repugnant I might think it is.
ImmortalSynn 8 months ago
"According to the author of the bill, David Bahati, “'the pro-gays have made the world believe that whoever will be found guilty of getting involved in homosexuality will be sentenced to death. No. Only when an adult forces a child or someone under the age of 18 into homosexuality, that is where the death penalty should apply.'"
jessemckay 1 year ago
@MissMoxie78
Love is beautiful, AIDS is not. Cuba wants to be proactive, so everyone is tested for HIV and the "winners" go to camps.
22,000 Americans died from AIDS in 2007. but only 100 Cubans - 1/70th of the rate.
Cuba shouldn't do what they're doing - it's bizarre, inhumane, and it looks like a witch hunt.
But it works,
And "anything goes" doesn't.
Freedom (of the genitals) isn't free.
jessemckay 1 year ago
Attention paid to stupid issues not relevant to us Americans where we shouldn't be throwing our money in the first place is the opiate of the masses.
E.G. Israeli support, this one.
lackofattack 1 year ago
@VChapaev
Regardless of whether the UN Human Rights declaration authorizes it, member states the world over routinely gloss over, take exception to, and defy the UN's little proclamations.
US President Bush rejected some of the "Human Rights" accords because they (1) favor abortion rights and (2) deny 17 year olds military service.
Many nations criminalize what we don't, sometimes to excess, and if Uganda commits excess here then so be it, certainly not casus belli.
jessemckay 1 year ago
Abstinence works..........
........that is, if you can get people to remain abstinent.
(which you can't)
newdimensionfilms 1 year ago
@newdimensionfilms
Especially teenagers, since they ALWAYS do exactly what their elders tell them... right?
Sad.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
It is sad to see the Christian church bringing about its own demise. There are some good people in Christianity but the politically vocal ones have ruined it for everyone.
TVWriterGuy 1 year ago
@TVWriterGuy
Have they? Or have they just exposed what so often goes on (or is said) behind closed doors?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn Interesting point...hmmmmmm.....something worth pondering.
TVWriterGuy 1 year ago
I think I'll take a quote from Ghandi for this one..
"I like your Christ, but not your Christians"
lost2darkness 1 year ago 4
@lost2darkness
Whereas, God loves sinners but not sin.
jessemckay 1 year ago
Who pushes abstinence unless your moral compass is completely screwed up.
Meloman0001 1 year ago
God bless Uganda for doing God's work.All gays should be arrested not married.All homosexuals desrve the death penalty,Praise God.God bless George Bush and the Godly and righteous republicans.
montsyblackmadonna 1 year ago
@montsyblackmadonna
LOL, gotta love good satire. ;)
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
well, i have something to say: tell uganda government to STOP this bill at once or it will shake till every wall falls down like haiti did.
you have 1 week.
dasskarailh 1 year ago
...odd
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
this is why i absolutely despise christians. they talk about peace and love and then support a bill that would put a death sentence on being gay. and those guys are idiots. studies have shown again and again abstinence only does not work
Azrael666Azazel 1 year ago
don't believe everything you hear from the media. I am a christian and do not support this bill, yet you hate me and don't even know me.
sphereofinfluence247 1 year ago 2
Please do not despise all Christians. These are fake. These guys are equal to Muslim extremist. "Follow what I say or I'll kill you"
lendada13 1 year ago
@Azrael666Azazel
In Uganda, and in many other places in the world, HIV/AIDS is so widespread that you will have abstinence OR you will have pestilence. There ain't no third direction.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@Azrael666Azazel I understand your anger because of the connection between this HEINOUS bill and Christianity, but I assure you that they do NOT represent those of us who really know the character of God through Jesus Christ. This is simply religious fanaticism at its HIGHEST levels!!!
brentduanefoster 1 year ago
And they think the antichrist will pretend to be christian? I don't think the antichrist if there was one would kill his image like that. You'd have to be crazy to associate yourself with them evangelicals. They're a threat to humanity
abdishtar 1 year ago
Very well said. I totally agree with everything you said.
mixnremix 1 year ago
I'm a compassionate Christian dang it! I don't think gays should be put to death or jailed. So there.
mutterkat 2 years ago
well ur not christian ... sorry to say that read the bible more often ... im not religious altho catholic , i dont believe in a man fuckin a man in the ass , and vise versa with women ( no matter how sexy lol) but .... come on dont claim what ur not ... do u believe when u die u go RIGHT to heaven ... or hell .. get back to me on that and ill give you the bible verse that proves u wrong :)
jaymackcreations 1 year ago
so if you don't believe women should be out to death for being in church during the period, or men for eating shellfish... then by the "brilliant" logic you just exhibited, "ur not Christian." It's right there in Leviticus.
Get real.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
fuck i had a huge good argument back but i was WAYYY over the word count :( but the multi million dollar churches didnt erect from the hand of jesus ... it was the CHARITY church ... gathereing ppls money scaring them in to what most ppl are today ... u have an opinion i aswell have one ... lol i dont wanna jesus beef ... i just get so confused with this stuff ... were told to not worship false idols and statues ... but i swear thats what we do ? i never met god ... have u ?
jaymackcreations 1 year ago
"fuck i had a huge good argument back but i was WAYYY over the word count"
...sooooo, why not then break it into multiple posts, like anyone with common sense would immediately think of doing?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@jaymackcreations It"s truly amazing that you really can encounter "Christians" like you out in the real world. There is no line item veto of Leviticus in the New Testament... The NT passages in which it's claimed that Jesus says it's no longer an abomination to wear cloth of 2 materials, or sleep in the same bed as a woman who's menstruating, or even to eat bacon, fail to single out the ones you do feel strongly about.
And know your verses if you claim to be ready to quote them. FFS.
winddelay 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God.
3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.
4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God.
5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
(Nothing to "Christians" yet.)
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
....and all the approximately 4 Billion people who have no use for ancient Hebrew tradition/mythology/religion say: who cares?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Perhaps a few struggling readers care whether Leviticus was directed at "Christians". It wasn't; it was directed at "Israelites."
Leviticus 20:13 reads thusly: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Christians were not commanded to deal harshly with active homosexuals -- mind you, abominations to God are still abominations
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
...so shellfish, polyester blends, and women who appear in the presence of religious leaders while on their period; according to that book and chapter of the Old Testament. Yet, most Christians (and many Jews) willfully disregard those, so what reason would you hold this one to some manner of elevated status-- other than the desire to express your own prejudice? I'd like to know your answer.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Christians do not consider thermselves bound to most of the 600+ Old Testament laws; but homosexuality is an abomination to God.
Leviticus 11:12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Shellfish, saith the Bible, is not for the Israelites (and this was before scientific tests for mercury). Fine. So shellfish is an abomination (detestable) to them.
Not an abomination to God.
God loves sinners and hates sin.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"Christians do not consider thermselves bound to most of the 600+ Old Testament laws"
Who cares... the question of any consequence is: does God consider otherwise?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@mutterkat
I don't think "Christian" requires an adjective, if so certainly not "compassionate."
I don't think I like what has been said and done in the name of "compassionate" Christianity.
Uganda has already given us Idi Amin Dada, who sent out death squads to murder Christians in the 1970s.
Based on advice from a dear friend, I suspect that Uganda is bluffing and they aren't really going to hurt anyone, so let's give them 12 years and 14 security resolutions before taking any action.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@mutterkat
These folks in Uganda deserve to have their own country and laws. I think they have worded their laws correctly - according to current law, people should be punished for unnatural sexual activity, not for "the crime of being gay."
So if you're in Uganda -- do be careful --- because your mind belongs to you, but not your ass!
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
Unfortunately for that take, the application of such a law (or more specifically, the execution of the penalties applied therefrom) can quite easily be considered a violation Jus Cogens, and thus making it in violation of international law, and potentially constituting genocide.
Next?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
The assertion that the United Nations would rise up in a giant ball of flaming secular humanism and physically prohibit Uganda from enforcing gay crime laws is of course absurdist.
No one seems to have noticed that gay crime laws are already on the books, but they currently max out at "life imprisonment" and not "death" in Uganda, and something tells me that one more teensy weensy capital punishment law for one more teensy weensy country isn't going to rattle the folks much.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"The assertion that the United Nations would rise up in a giant ball of flaming secular humanism and physically prohibit Uganda from enforcing gay crime laws is of course absurdist."
...which might be why YOU'RE the first and only one here, to thus far make it. I haven't said a word about the U.N., nor has anyone else.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
The United Nations (though I think very little of them or of their track record) is basically the only hope you've got if you think that force must be used to preserve the lives of innocent homosexuals in Uganda.
People may war over land, or gold, or oil, or religion, or even possibly free speech, but I doubt you will move any armies against Uganda no matter how many laws they pass or how many gays they catch.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"The United Nations is basically the only hope you've got if you think that force must be used "
How do you come to that conclusion, considering that the UN does not now (nor has it ever) commanded a standing army nor the ability to administer militaristic force?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
IMHO the idea that the "international community" does or should have some type of review over a criminal or civil action taken within the borders of a nation is specious at best.
Do I pledge allegiance to North America? To the UN or the "World Council?" I most assuredly do not... and if my state happens to exceed the peremptory norm and consider it a capital offense to rape a 6-year old, I don't want the Russians or the Chinese or the Zimbabweans to have veto powers.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
...veto powers over what? They, well the first two, already have it over just about anything applicable in that regard.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
"Jus cogens" has become your mantra in this matter.
Uganda has criminalized sex outside the order of nature now for generations, but in the struggle for free genitals, the butcher's bill is very very high.
In 2007, AIDS claimed the lives of 77,000 people in Uganda... a rate 30 times higher than the USA.
The activists and the chatter groups think it's "genocide" if Uganda enacts a death penalty.
People who are on the ground know there already is a death penalty.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"In 2007, AIDS claimed the lives of 77,000 people in Uganda... a rate 30 times higher than the USA."
...Are you disingenuously attempting to imply that that's primarily due to the presence/activities of gay people there, when they constitute a mere fraction of the spread in that area? If not, what's your point in bringing it up?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
If you are going to criticize another country's policies, does it not occur to you to read more about that country? Did you know that in 2001, Uganda reported that 530,000 of its residents already have HIV/AIDS?
The Bahati bill (also current law) says, "outside the order of nature." - you may or may not infer 'gay' from that -- but most HIV probably spreads to heterosexuals in Africa, especially if 4% (or ~more~) of that population already has HIV/AIDS but 3% are gay.,
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"does it not occur to you to read more about that country?"
Does it not occur to you that before asking such a snippety question, you should first know the actual extent OF that person's grasp on the subject at hand?
UNAIDS/WHO Working Group on Global HIV/AIDS and STI Surveillance reports Uganda's current HIV rate reports 5.4% of the current population as living with HIV, with the highest transmission being MTCT.
And 3% of the population gay? Hmm, substantiate that please.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
For the benefit of Dear Reader, I will note that MTCT means "mother to child transmission,"
"There are an estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in Uganda, which includes 120,000 children.. An estimated 61,000 people died from AIDS in 2008 and 1.2 million children have been orphaned by Uganda's devastating epidemic.."
ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms) helped reduced the rate from 15% to 5%.
I defer to the Reader as to whether MTCT is truly #1 in Uganda.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
Defer all you want, what more authoritative source are they going to find than that?
And if any attempt of yours to use the number of people there currently living with HIV as an attempt to refuse such, is rather short-sighted, as it apparently ignores the fact that MTC**TRANSMISSION** is still most common, but that many of those children... don't last very long... to put it lightly, thus not contributing much to the "currently living" numbers.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Also MTCT does not end with childbirth. The mother can pass HIV to the child through breastfeeding, and this is a special risk for lower-income countries. It is a special risk for women who refuse testing for HIV.
Now, folks, please observe that neither ImmortalSynn nor I want anyone to contract HIV/AIDS, and even though we think of each other as horrible monsters we would both be happier if there were no such thing as HIV.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
"what more authoritative source are they going to find than that?"
I get a little suspicious about reports that are as thorough and multi-faceted as this one, when for some bizarre reason cannot allow the word "homosexual" or "gay" to pass through spellcheck.
Know this: MSM or men having sex with men is not insignificant to AIDS.
"Overall in Africa, men who have sex with men are almost 4 times more likely to be HIV positive than the general population."
jessemckay 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Statistically speaking, if 4% of the population is infected and 3% of the population is gay then not all of the infected people are gay.
The Reader should not infer from the remark that a sexual orientation census has been taken in Uganda, nor that such number is 3% or is near 3%.
Also, please note that ImmortalSynn is not suggesting male-male intercourse with strangers in concentrated centers is a safe practice in the age of HIV/AIDS. He knows better than to say that.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"And 3% of the population gay? Hmm, substantiate that please."
Did you miss that the first time? Just saying that some **unnamed and unsourced** "sexual orientation census" (whatever the heck that's supposed to be) was taken does NOT suffice.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
For some reason, you want to me to concede that I don't know how many people in Uganda are gay... something nobody knows in any precise kind of way, because people don't always tell the truth. Sometimes people lie to themselves.
In the USA, our own scientists have told us for 25 years, HIV/AIDS is going to burst outside of the gay community and become a mostly hetero phenom "as it is in Africa." But it never happened that way. There are many seemingly-logical explanations.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"But it never happened that way."
...save for the fact that Black women and Latinas now have higher infection rates than gay males in many parts of the country?
But oh yeah, that's right... long as it's not Whites, it's no big deal right? How Reagan-esque.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
The surges that are occurring among minorities in certain cities in the USA are real and they are threatening.
But if researchers in Africa can't say gay and can't say homosexual, and can't say this or that, pretty soon the fact that MSM AIDS rates in Africa are enormous.becomes buried deep in the stats. I think there is a kind of homophobia-phobia, if you will, and there's a health emergency going on here.
The love that dares not speak its name can kill you dead.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
First, I do not have homophobia-phobia. I'm not going to gloss over the excesses of promiscuous gay men because of the excesses of promiscuous straight men and women and IV drug users vis-a-vis HIV/AIDS transmission.
Second, I do not have racism racism. I don't believe that only whites can be racist and it's a sham to raise race in this kind of forum. Shame on those who say that whites don't care about HIV transmission among minorities.
Rest in peace, Ronald Reagan.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"Shame on those who say that whites don't care about HIV transmission among minorities."
...except for the cases when some of them, particularly those in power, don't. Remember, that sack o' shit Reagan is not on record as even accepting a briefing on the AIDS crisis until 1983, when Lorraine DeSantis (the first non-prostitute White woman known to have the affliction) died. Even then, he never publicly addressed it until 1986, much less DID anything.
Rot in hell, Ronald Reagan.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
(1) US President Obama's lineage is Luo (from Kenya; many Ugandans are also Luos.) He is an anti-colonialist with communist ideology similar to his father. Mark my words, Obama won't lift to finger to compel Uganda to do anything and certainly won't roll tanks.
(2) The UN doesn't presently command a standing army, but in the future it may. The shocks of the past 20 years (Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Barack Obama) have taught us how quickly a crisis can begin.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"but in the future it may."
And you base that on ___?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
One of the reasons I do a better job of answering your questions than you do of questioning my answers, is, I actually do some research.
When I say that Louisiana ratified the 19th Amendment on June 11, 1970, I have checked that fact. When you reply, "Bullshit," that's just your automatic gainsaying of any statement one happens to make. Other critiques include witticisms such as "idiocy," "two drops o' dogshit," "in your little mind," and the ever-so-snappy "who cares."
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
Usually because each one of those are accurate to the situation at hand.
Any research you actually fool yourself into thinking formulations substantiation is worthless without citation. Your typical MO is to restate what you've been challenged on, as if repeating it multiple times is going to somehow render it unchallengeable. What sources have you put forth (that can't just as easily be refuted with others) to any given issue?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Such a "restatement," I think, is best directed towards the Reader, who may better receive the information if it is better presented.
Conversely, when you use your Special Words, the Reader is oft left to conclude possibly that you don't counter with an argument because you either don't have an argument or don't care to bring one.
"Bullshit," "dogshit." or "dumbfuck," might be your generation's version of that so-refined John Travolta's "up your nose with a rubber hose."
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
Perhaps it would be, if I left it at that... but rare. I usually just remind you that a pointless/unsubstantiated/repeated claim is often just that, bullshit by a dumbfuck.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Me: "The UN doesn't presently command a standing army, but in the future it may."
You: "And you base that on ___?"
I base that several articles I examined under the topic, Should The UN Have A Standing Army?
In some articles, celebrities or pinheads debate whether the UN should have a standing army. In others, it is reportedly being discussed among various governments or UN organs that there should be a UN standing army. One post cites a US President (guess who).
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"I base that several articles"
Such as? Again, worthless without tangible corroboration. Not just you saying "I read some articles"
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Although the sense of camaraderie shown me is underwhelming, it was my decision early on not to flood with URLs, preferring instead to leave my sourcing claims to Dear Reader as an exercise.
The Reader is also left to wonder -- does the Moderator request attribution in a sincere search for fact and truth, or does he propose a common scheme, a battle of sourcing to achieve via ad nauseum a victory he perhaps could not win through logic?
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
Common sense should be able to tell you the answer to that, considering that I'll name my source whenever requested, and often when not... sorta like I just did with the Uganda percentage. Think dude, think.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
Correction: "I base that" should read, "I base that on" instead.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
In the future, the United Nations may command a standing army.
At present, with total expenditures in the small number of billions (USD) per year, the UN could not afford anything approaching a modern or effective army. But times change.
What sort of conflict would have broad Security Council agreement? Russia, China, and the USA, disagree on so much. But s progressive future USA may cede major duties, taxes, and powers to the UN -- believing only it should act.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
Do you have the FAINTEST idea the amount of overturn/rewriting of international law that'd have to be done to facilitate thus? Combine that with the veto power of several countries who'd never stand for it, and that's almost akin to worrying about a lightning strike!
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Where could the UN derive its tax base? Could it, for example, "own" international waters, international airspace, Antarctica, or other resources that other nations don't currently claim?
Could the UN or some derivative gradually take over USA missions in South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, England, and other countries the USA is spending many billions per year to defend?
jessemckay 1 year ago
most americans don't have a big problem with george w. bush
exbronco1980 2 years ago
Though you've demonstrated no evidence whatsoever to make such generalized claim...
...on the other hand, history does tend to show that even vastly unpopular presidents are seen with increasing favor in hindsight, as time goes on.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
Bush Senior, or Junior?
TwinSkies 2 years ago
@TwinSkies
I think Bush 43 has ~already~ become more popular, as we approach the halftime on Obama's term.
He couldn't help but be... Obama is such a disaster in so many ways.
This Obama is easily the worst President of my lifetime, and I cannot see how he will eke above Buchanan to avoid being the worst President ever. Hopefully, and this is not yet certain, with a check and balance this fall, there can be some restraint on this guy (a la Bill Clinton) but we shall see.
jessemckay 1 year ago
I hate to break this to you, but in most Western countries, if you're of ANY orientation and intentionally give HIV to ANYONE, you're a murderer.
How you somehow manage to pin this onto gays diddling children, when the overwhelming majority of child molesters are straight males, and the overwhelming majority of HIV infections in Africa is via HETEROsexual intercourse... is anyone's guess.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
Bullshit.
Can YOU list/describe a greater violation of the norms of Jus Cogens, which the UN religiously subscribes to, than genocide of ANY grouping?
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
@ImmortalSynn
Israelis may (more or less accurately) be described as a religious, ethnic, racial, or national group, any of which would fall within the definition of a group which when singled out for destruction by an authority, would constitute "genocide."
People who collect stamps are a group, but rounding them up and killing them, though morally wrong, is not genocide.
Bank robbers, looters, and certain fleeing suspects, are often shot on sight without genocidal intent.
jessemckay 1 year ago
Regardless what we may think of Uganda for contemplating this type of law, and regardless our personal opinion of homosexuals - homosexuals are neither a religious, ethnic, racial, or national group and therefore Uganda cannot commit "genocide" by singling them out for destruction.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"homosexuals are neither a religious, ethnic, racial, or national group"
...you're "forgetting" (uh huh, sure) two relatively significant classifications, that go back to Nuremburg and beyond: Culture and Class.
Either could be used to describe gays, thus debunking your (ridiculous) assertion.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
That is a textbook definition, sir, and if you can rewrite the textbook at will then it means nothing.
So -- ignore it, attack it, replace it, remove it; edit my comment and change my words to whatever you want. I have no emotion over a textbook.
And before you start going all Hitler this, Nazi that, Fuhrer done hit me with a wiffle-ball bat:
"During the war years, 1939 to 1945, the Nazis did not generally instigate drives against homosexuality in German-occupied countries."
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"That is a textbook definition, sir"
Oh yeah, then what textbook would THAT be? Texas school board anyone?
...because when last I checked, these sorta things were defined by legal precedent-- and as stated, Class in Culture have been used in the legal process from everything from Nuremburg, to the Sudan crisis, to 1994 Rwanda, to the Niger Delta issue.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
How ironic that you consider the act of criminalizing a crime against nature to be a crime against humanity. (?)
However, the die is cast, the homosex laws in Uganda have been on the books for an awfully long time, I am told 60 years.
This proposed action upgrades the maximum penalty from life in prison to death..
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"How ironic that you consider the act of criminalizing a crime against nature to be a crime against humanity. "
How in your idiot assessment is that ironic, considering that the (essentially defunct) application of "crime against nature" has been so ridiculously applied, as to constitute oral or (in the case of at least one state) non-missionary sex between even a husband and wife?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Mmm-hmm.
This law is already on the books in Uganda:
“Any person who— (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; (b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.”
But for the he's and she's, I understand this has been the law in Uganda for 60 years.
(And there's more...)
jessemckay 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn ALL of those things are groups that gays fall into. Gays are not just GAYS. They're not some seperate group. They're people like you and me, and they are religious or not, they have different ethnic and racial backgrounds like anyone else, and they can fall in any class, just like EVERYONE ELSE. They're people made up of all kinds of groups, not JUST homosexuels
dancesonpoles 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
The law, on the face of it, is issued correctly because it is based on action and not thought. Those of you who believe that gay is "who you are" not "what you do" should be fine with this.
Grasping another man by the buttocks and penetrating him anally does not give one status, "culture," or "class."
Why should it?
What is so classy and cultural about this or any other sexual rubric, that it requires not just national but global affirmation -- backed by armies?
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
The answer's more simple than even you:
because doing to position as such is a ridiculously unrealistic expectation. The exact same injustice as in 1930s Russia: okay to have religion, but not pray or offer any demonstration/symbol of religious piety. Yeah, that makes sense.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
I'm supposed to watch the Rachel Maddow video, read the comments, and feel somehow inferior in that I basically don't give a darn whether Uganda or whatever country executes or simply imprisons their gays.
Uganda's present law permits life imprisonment for serial offenders. That's been the law since 1960, and if they want to pass the Bahati bill, that's fine with me. The public is showing broad support for the bill.
The action, as written, is not immoral.
Be well.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"The action, as written, is not immoral."
...so tell me, would you feel the same about societies that chose to do the same thing to Christians for "serial offenses" of congregation, and invocation of religious dogma?
Remember, not to long ago, that was quite common in the Soviet bloc and many parts of Asia.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
And Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and quite a few Muslim nations are intolerant of Christianity or Judaism.
Don't like 'em, don't want to kill them.
It is not immoral for the state to condemn and/or repress immorality.
But there are other ways to push back against the Bahati bill without trying to get Barack Obama to roll tanks.
Perhaps you want to start another Courage Campaign™. Or... hmmm... get gay Ugandans to stand up for themselves... Black Out™, Ugs Out™, like that.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"It is not immoral for the state to condemn and/or repress immorality."
Which is, in and of itself, blatant idiocy... seeing that morality is not only completely subjective, but also malleable, thus allowing it to be used as a violation of rights in whatever means dictated by popular opinion. History shows a myriad of such examples.
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Something's Backwards
Voting machines in Nevada are tipped towards Reid; the maintenance contract is held by SEIU.
1995 Flashback: Poland doesn't have a Communist Party, and the USA does. (Bonus: as of 2002, Poland *does* have a Communist Party!)
NASA now plans to send astronauts to Mars ~permanently~ because it's cheaper to colonize Mars than bring 'em home. Martians we can't send home include Jerry Brown who is favored to win the Governor's race in California.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Something's Backwards
In Uganda gay marriage is unconstitutional, and in the USA our President is Barack Hussein Obama.
Russia has a 13% flat income tax - while President Obama says rates on the rich have got to go up.
With some cajoling, President Obama has convinced the Russians to send troops ~into~ Afghanistan (to help train the Afghan army) while Obama plans for the USA to leave.
(continued)
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
What's "backwards" about any of the above?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@jessemckay
Correction: not 1960 -- 1950. Not 50 years. 60 years.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
Another clever riposte. I'm "simple."
Gentle Reader has been very patient, I think, with your lackluster claim that Uganda's Bahati bill would constitute genocide because practicing homosexuals are a "Culture," or a "Class."
One would think that striking Uganda's law in its entirety and not just the new capital punishment aspect of it, would be the minimum relief sought in any action brought on behalf of the plantiff group.
Perhaps you could embellish a bit here...?
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
Remind us again what constitutes a "practicing homosexual" versus, say, any other?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
The closest thing to a definition I found was, "a person who is openly approving of homosexuality and is engaged in it."
I would think that the plaintiff class, in an action at law potentially arising from the Bahati bill could become law in Uganda, would be comprised of these people.
Of course, there are many other ways to populate such a class. Perhaps every gay. lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered, two-spirited, queer, or questioning person is a member.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
That doesn't address my question... how does THAT, by the definition you just gave, differ from any other type of homosexual person?
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
You: "Remind us again what constitutes a "practicing homosexual" versus, say, any other?"
Me: "The closest thing to a definition I found was, "a person who is openly approving of homosexuality and is engaged in it.""
You: "That doesn't address my question... how does THAT, by the definition you just gave, differ from any other type of homosexual person"
I suggest that my response DOES INDEED address your question, properly and fully, for the purpose of the law.
jessemckay 1 year ago
@jessemckay
"I suggest that my response DOES INDEED address your question, properly and fully, for the purpose of the law."
Are you kidding me with this? it falls flat on its face. By that definition, the drunk straight twits in a GirlsGoneWild video are "practicing homosexuals." Actors simulating a gay kiss in a movie would be, by the pathetically loose definition you just provided, "practicing homosexuality." Where do you dig up this tripe???
ImmortalSynn 1 year ago
@ImmortalSynn
The GGW twits, the "gay kiss" actors. and so forth, commit acts that, as I understand it, are already forbidden under present law in Uganda.
Proposed legislation to elevate the morality statute does not address this particular conduct. It is already criminal, and it would remain criminal.
Although I don't think that any society should change its laws retroactively, I do respect Uganda's authority to control local activities which are indecent, immoral, or dangerous.
jessemckay 6 months ago
The international community cannot allow this bill to become law. Uganda is promoting genocide, as did Hitler. Those conservative senators with ties to the African Nation should be investigated and held accountable if their actions prompted such a legislation.
traslaverdad1 2 years ago
@traslaverdad1
Part of the compact of "genocide," is that by decimation, the actor causes or intends to cause the extinction of the group. And yet in "genocide," you have chosen a group which unlike most others, does not propogate. Gays simply do not breed gays, and if every gay person disappeared tomorrow (beamed, let's say, aboard huge starships and transported to distant star systems) then in 100 years, gays would still exist and in similar proportions to today. Some genocide.
jessemckay 8 months ago
@jessemckay
Wow, I've almost missed your intense manner of lunacy. Almost.
I guess by your astonishing (lack of) logic.... killing non-ethnic Jews would be "some genocide" too, since in theory they can be replaced by means other than breeding as well. You fucking idiot, lol.
ImmortalSynn 8 months ago
@ImmortalSynn
Gays do not breed gays. Gay is not a religion -- and before you say it, yes, I know about the Metropolitan Community Church. Now, if it's the whole "gay community" thing that you hold sacrosanct -- and this is where the foot is desperately trying the door -- then you ascribe community values upon the whole of gaydom itself, and you apparently demand that said values are beyond judgment.
You think Judaism would rise again from nought? You'd have much better odds with gays.
jessemckay 8 months ago
@jessemckay
Your seeming inability to learn not to (rampantly!) assume, is ASTONISHING to me!
**I** hold the concept of a "gay community" to be sacrosanct?? Well, that's certainly interesting, considering that I don't even believe such a thing to exist! LOL. Idiot.
ImmortalSynn 8 months ago
@ImmortalSynn
Thus the "if"; however, I have investigated (somewhat) the very strange idea of culture as community. I really don't know how we get to group rights, the mystical-mythical GLBT human rights platform, if we don't believe that they constitute a community.
jessemckay 7 months ago
@jessemckay
....who's "we"?
ImmortalSynn 7 months ago
@ImmortalSynn
Another clarification for Dear Reader:
"The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart." (1 Kings 10:24)
Whether Uganda or the USA, whether constitutional republic or dictatorship, society's arguments quickly become too numerous for a sole executive. Guidance for proper living has been supplied by religion (Exodus 20) and the state (Hammurabi) for thousands of years now.
Today, public law is guidance we give ourselves.
jessemckay 6 months ago
@jessemckay
...and a significant amount of said "proper living" would be beyond appalling by any modern society's standards. Ergo, what's your point?
ImmortalSynn 6 months ago
@ImmortalSynn
First, to say that an idea is good because it's new is itself a fallacy... it's an appeal to novelty.
Second, "any modern society's standards" ("appalled" by standards of long ago) are themselves malleable. "An eye for an eye" sounds brutal; one is left to wonder whether Nicole Simpson, Caylee Anthony, and Natalie Holloway would be alive today if justice were certain, swift. and brutal.
jessemckay 6 months ago
@jessemckay
"one is left to wonder whether Nicole Simpson, Caylee Anthony, and Natalie Holloway would be alive today if justice were certain, swift. and brutal."
That makes even LESS sense than your usual idiotic rambling.... i.e., what requirement would there be for *justice* were those people not killed/missing in the first place-- and thus what would an eye4eye scenario have to do with a crime that hadn't yet happened?
ImmortalSynn 6 months ago
In the OJ Simpson debacle, the public saw what it perceived as a celebrity who was able to purchase his freedom with slick "Dream Team" attorneys. Joran van der Sloot is likewise seen as a young man with a prominent father who promptly dummied up and used the legal system to escape murder charges. Are we supposed to just accept that Casey Anthony was too bombed to function and leave it at that? Nicole, Caylee, and Natalie were the innocent ones here. The legal systems failed them (and us).
jessemckay 6 months ago
@ImmortalSynn
Some of us still believe that punishment deters crime -- that would-be criminals actually sometimes think about the consequences of their actions and have the power to do, or not do, a wicked thing. For those of us who still believe in deterrence, we want prison life to be hard; we want prison food to be bland; we want prison cells to be spartan and not particularly comfortable. We want people to hate prison and avoid committing the crimes that would send them there.
jessemckay 6 months ago
@ImmortalSynn
Third, "appalling" is an appeal to public sentiment. It is mallum in se. People are appalled because they know it's wrong, not just some technicality. Now, do we believe that most Ugandans want to upgrade their morality law? Or do we believe that most want to leave it the same?
R-Madd and her cadre (nodding to you) would prefer that the morality statute be removed in toto; gone, all of it. Very, very few Ugandans want that, so talk of "standards" works against you.
jessemckay 6 months ago
@jessemckay
Have you actually sat back READ the first sentence you wrote there, after completing the rest of that droll musing? You whine about appealing to public sentiment as a fallacy, yet spend the rest of the post justifying inhumane behavior because of majority support. Hypocrisy in less than a paragraph.
ImmortalSynn 6 months ago
@ImmortalSynn
It is true that Ugandans generally consider homosex to be taboo, but these activities are not solo; these activities themselves are considered inhumane.
jessemckay 6 months ago
@ImmortalSynn
Dear Reader should not equate "logical fallacies," which are formal, with political errors, which are in the purview of the common people in the United States and many other nations who are of republican government.
I can identify "appalling" as an appeal to public sentiment which is officially a fallacy -- in an argument this means the speaker is begging the audience for what he cannot prove. But what of law? Is law to be derived by science with no emotion? Unworkable!
jessemckay 3 months ago
Agriculture occupies a lot of land, resources, and roughly a billion people are engaged in it. It isn't much fun; but it is something man will do as long as he eats. In this fashion, I will suggest that politics is usually maddening, nauseating, or boring; it consumes much and produces little; but we must have the fruits of politics even if we don't particularly like them. To bring order is to repress freedom. To protect the weak is to bind the strong. Balance, and they will criticize that.
jessemckay 3 months ago
So after allowing gays, next is bestiality ? Human right to sleep with your dog, cat, horse etc...?
myckaka 2 years ago
Apparently, you have quite a bit of studying to do on the fallacy of the "slippery slope" argument.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
@ImmortalSynn
There is no fallacy, the slippery slope argument has been shown to be true time and time again. Just saying it is false does not make it so. One thing I've discovered with Democrats is that if you give them an inch they will try to take a mile, no matter how much they try to deny it beforehand.
jlwelch 2 years ago
LEGAL FALLACY, fool. That's all that really matters, or is even applicable in situations such as this. Particularly when argued in a social context, seeing as ANY alteration of a status quo can/will be viewed as such by at least ~some~ group or demographic.
But a judiciary and legislative fallacy it is indeed; it failed as an argument against desegregation, against women's suffrage, and it eventually will against gay rights.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
@ImmortalSynn
It never failed. I'm not saying that I agreed with desegregation or the way social groups were treated, but those who were against it were right to suspect that the rest of us wanted to make them equal. There is no fallacy regarding the slippery slope argument.
jlwelch 2 years ago
"There is no fallacy regarding the slippery slope argument. "
I almost hate to be the one to tell you this, but repeating that won't make it any more true.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
It doesn't matter how many times I have to say it before it sinks into your head or how many times you deny it, it IS true. Especially with democrats.
jlwelch 2 years ago
Only in your little mind.
I have about 40years of case precedence to back up my assertion... where's your corroboration.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
Actually, as I pointed out earlier, you do NOT have 40 years case corroboration, your examples are actually proof of the principle itself.
If you don't understand the basic tenants of ethics and morality you really shouldn't be talking here.
jlwelch 2 years ago
Are you dim, or just plain illiterate?
...let's try this again for the Nth time:
I'm well aware that the nature of social progress itself lends credence to the fears of Regressives. I'm not now, nor have I ever in this thread, argued against that.
What you appeared to miss, is that I've now multiple times informed you that the notion of slipper slope, is now and in the past, a LEGAL (L-E-G-A-L, as in "doesn't stand up as an argument of merit in court") fallacy. History more than proves it.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
@ImmortalSynn
If you do not argue with the nature of social "progress" (more like degradation) then you understand the moral slippery slope argument. The fact that you can see it happening, and recognize it "lends credence" to the fears of regressives means you understand the concept!
The Laws that are made only reflect this. In the 1920's, nobody would even think to commit a crime as heinous as abortion, now it is legal. That is just one example.
jlwelch 2 years ago
"moral slippery slope argument"
I'm aware of the (a)moral argument; I'm saying that THAT argument isn't worth 2 drops o' dogshit because morality is entirely subjective. Only the legal argument, within which it's a fallacy, holds
"a crime as heinous as abortion"
Ah yes: they could only just legally beat women to within an inch of their life, then terrorize entire ethnic communities with as much immunity as impunity. Long as they weren't killing kids that nobody wants, it's all good, right?
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
Morality is not subjective, it is factual. And the moral slippery slope argument impacts people's view of morality which in turn affects the lawmaking process. THAT is how it is relevant. There is no fallacy.
I never said beating women was right or that terrorizing ethnic communities was ok. Quote me the specific sentence I used that gave you that impression. All I said was abortion is a heinous crime.
jlwelch 2 years ago
"Morality is not subjective, it is factual."
...are you kidding me with this. There's barely any issue on earth MORE relative than the nature/constitution of morality!
P.S..
I'll address your email when I gain access to my comp. No way I'm going to reply to something of that length from my phone. I'd prefer you to keep the commentary here, thanks.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
Morality IS factual for those of us with a moral center. Some people may need to deliberate whether murder is wrong when they go in for an abortion. Some people may need to decide if cheating is wrong when illegally crossing the border. But there is a word for those people, and it is idiots.
My four year old knows the difference between right and wrong, and I tend to expect others to as well. If you think morality is subjective, then like many others,you don't have any morals to begin with
jlwelch 2 years ago
Think about what you're actually saying, a "moral center" can be, and of course *is*, EXTREMELY relative.
Take an Agnostic feminist and an orthodox Pentacostal woman, and ask each to give their opinion on morality vis-a-vis women: care to argue that it wouldn't be inherently different at the core?
How about we take a Western Buddhist and a Wahabi, and ask them what constitutes morality; same concept...
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
A moral center is only relative in the minds of those who do not have one. The Agnostic feminist possesses no moral center because she is not Christian. Same with the Buddhist. And I have no idea what a Wahabi is, some other newfangled false religion?
jlwelch 2 years ago
"no moral center because she is not Christian."
Ah, so only Christians are inherent to morality? Congrats on just blowing any credence you could've POSSIBLY had, clear outta the water! :)
"And I have no idea what a Wahabi is"
Which is but yet another display of your massive ignorance at work. Sad, because you should know of them well, as the Far-Right loves to remind everyone else how much Wahabis want to kill us, then exploit that fear for their own flagrant purposes.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
I take it as a precursor to common sense that only Christians have a moral center for you cannot have a moral center and follow a false religion. That doesn't even make sense.
And I openly stated I don't know what a Wahabi is, so don't accuse me of ignorance. I doubt anyone is familiar with every social group on the planet. You say Wahabis want to kill us? Use your next post to explain to me who they are.
jlwelch 2 years ago
And then there are those who would laugh at the notion of a "false religion" as well as those who take all religions as false. Y'see, it's that very difference in perspective, that we call "SUBJECTIVITY"... you know, the whole genesis of this conversation? LOL
That, and why should I not highlight your own ignorance when you yourself admitted to it?
Also, instead of taking the Beck-esque approach of waiting to be told what something is... why not do the research, and FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF?
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
Laughter is a response more commonly associated with those who prefer to worship false religions and rebel against God. This has nothing to do with perspective or subjectivity, if you die without Christ as your Savior, it won't matter what your perspective is, you will go to Hell.
I never admitted ignorance, I said I don't know what Wahabis are. Since you brought it up, it is YOUR responsibility to answer a simple request in telling me what they are and why they're relevant.
jlwelch 2 years ago
"I never admitted ignorance, I said I don't know"
...lol, PRICELESS!!!!!!!!!!!
That, and I have no responsibility to you whatsoever. I do, however, find it ASTONISHING that nearly 3 hours after admitting your own ignorance, you're STILL WAITING TO HAVE INFORMATION DICTATED to you!! I didn't really fathom how the likes of Limbaugh and Beck have such a stranglehold on the mentality of the Far Right, until right now. Truly amazing!
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago
What is so priceless about that? I don't know what Wahabis are. Do you know what the acronym TOCSY stands for in the realm of NMR theory? Probably not. Does that make us ignorant people for not knowing random factoids having nothing to do with the present discussion?
You brought them up, so explain to me why their relevant. The only ignorant one here is the one claiming I've admitted to something I haven't. Can you not read?
jlwelch 2 years ago
What's priceless is the irony... what you just said, was equivalent to saying "I'm not deaf, I just can't hear at all"
Um, yeah... that's total correlation spectroscopy, not difficult at all. Next (idiotic) question?
I can read quite well thanks. But this is hilarious-- all you've managed to show me is that you don't even understand the etymology of the word "ignorance", so I'm having some fun with it... sue me.
ImmortalSynn 2 years ago