Jump to content


Photo

Stockholm Terror Attack


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#26 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 03:45 AM

Also, why are we discussing politics on a game page? Was one of our forum members killed or injured in the attack?

#27 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1114 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 04:14 AM

I would not say that Islam is a "shitty" religion, in general. As with all religions, there are just arseholes who use to excuse their killing and/or misuse it for personal gain. But I agree in these points: religion and state have to be separated and human rights have to be acknowledged. As long as these points are given, everyone can believe in what they want. However, this is not compatible with the world view of terrorists...

 

As why this is discussed on a game page: This here is the "Off-Topic" section, where discussions are not limited to games (read the description: "You can post almost anything in here"). This specific topic is just current news and, consequently, people want to talk about it. It is not the first political discussion on this board, either, and it is nice, that we have poeple from all around the world (some of which are from Sweden and might be affected more directly by this topic) with different views, that can discuss about these things in a factual matter, without getting insulting or upset immediately. Much like Springheel said: it is how this discussion (/these discussions) should also be on a global scale, which, unfortunately, they are not.


  • Judith and Anderson like this

#28 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 723 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 05:40 AM

As for Anderson, I must say I find your comment on LGBT being given civil rights as "a nonissue" is pretty much bullshit. If we just said "civil rights is a nonissue because rich and powerful nations do not have them", then America would still legalize slavery. Yeah, Islam is a shitty religion, but if we let Middle Eastern refugees come to America and make it clear we will NOT be theocracy, they could choose to become apostate or, at the very least, form a new sect of "Islam Lite" much like how the Catholic Church no longer has torture dungeons and Inquisitors. Basically, we have to lure the citizens away from the shitty religion toward secular humanism.

 

Speaking philosophically LGBT rights don't matter because it's not natural. My bias is not religious. Slavery is clearly immoral. Why is LGBT supposed to be a right? Like the right to marry a tree or a cat. "Scientists conducting research in the field and assessing that homosexuality is also love" are just delivering a political thing, waste of time.

Words of gold right here:



#29 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:19 AM

Also, why are we discussing politics on a game page? Was one of our forum members killed or injured in the attack?

????

 

Off-topic section.


Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#30 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:22 AM

 

Speaking philosophically LGBT rights don't matter because it's not natural. My bias is not religious. Slavery is clearly immoral. Why is LGBT supposed to be a right? Like the right to marry a tree or a cat. "Scientists conducting research in the field and assessing that homosexuality is also love" are just delivering a political thing, waste of time.

Words of gold right here:

LGBT is a possible status of the person (human being in a pre-existing group/society) and a status needs to be regulated by rights in a civil state whenever it creates "turbolent" behaviours/reactions in some other persons.

Or LGBT people can create their own State (LOL) :P But this other option is silly.


Edited by lowenz, 09 April 2017 - 07:26 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#31 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:28 AM

"Slavery is clearly immoral"

 

Wellllllllllllll, slavery is considered moral by christian doctrine too (a "good" slave is a good son of God who can conquer the eternal life being a good slave), so speaking about "morality" of this or that thing is a slippery slope :P

 

About the "rights", I think the best way is to consider the reactions of others to an individual behaviour. If there's "some violent reactions to a not violent input" the state creates the proper "rights" to protect the individual freedom.

The problem is "now there are the second order violent reactions" (the reactions to the state decision of creating the proper rights).


Edited by lowenz, 09 April 2017 - 07:48 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#32 Judith

Judith

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 450 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:32 AM

It just doesn't lead to a natural conception and birth of a child, but try to say to someone, who genuinely falls in love and is happy with people of the same sex, or does feel comfortable and happy in the body of the sex opposite to his "birth sex", that his or her way is not natural or unimportant.



#33 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:42 AM

pedophile prophet

A pedophile doesn't live with the same *OLDER* wife (Khadìja -> 40 yo / Muhammad -> 25 yo) for 25/30 years :P


Edited by lowenz, 09 April 2017 - 07:44 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#34 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 36144 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:46 AM

Speaking philosophically LGBT rights don't matter because it's not natural.

 

 

If you're going to throw out statements like that you should probably define your terms.  What do you mean by "LGBT rights"?  What do you mean by "natural"?

 

My bias is not religious.

 

 

So where does you bias come from then?
 

 

Slavery is clearly immoral.

 

It wasn't so clear a few centuries ago.  It still isn't clear in some areas of the world.

 

 

 

Why is LGBT supposed to be a right? Like the right to marry a tree or a cat. "Scientists conducting research in the field and assessing that homosexuality is also love" are just delivering a political thing, waste of time.

 

 

 

The question shouldn't be "why should something be a right", it should be, "why shouldn't something be a right?"  Why would you want to limit adult behaviour that doesn't cause anyone harm? As for whether it's a waste of time, you might get different opinions from those people it actually affects.


  • Destined likes this

#35 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1114 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:48 AM

Speaking philosophically LGBT rights don't matter because it's not natural.

This is simply not true. Homosexuality is wide-spread in the animal kingdom. Researches have shown that the gene responsible for homosexuality leads to a stronger sex-drive in heterosexual animals (which is why it still exists in nature). Only if this gene is dominant does it result in homosexuality. So basically, you have a majority of individuals with a higher reproduction rate for a few individuals without any repdorduction, which is why (purely evolutionary) it makes sense that homosexuality has not died out, yet.

Apart from that, I don't like the "it is unnatural" argument. Is it "natural" to use artificial weapons instead of any that your body has by itself? Is it "natural" to use the hide of another animal for your own protection? On the other hand, there are several examples of "natural" behaviour, that society does not stand for. One example: Rape; it is very common in the animal kingdom to take your partner by force. This does not mean, that it is ok or common for humans.


  • Judith likes this

#36 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:56 AM

Rape; it is very common in the animal kingdom to take your partner by force. This does not mean, that it is ok or common for humans.

The problem is that kind of things are borderline WHEN NOT associated with "plain" violence used to subjugate the.....subject.

Animals do not torture/wound/kill to copulate. They can enrage the partner but not torture/wound/kill in the process. So I can say there is no "rape" in other species. If the copulation is intraspecies.

 

Oh, the penguins case.....right :D


Edited by lowenz, 09 April 2017 - 08:01 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#37 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 08:06 AM

Oh, the penguins case.....right :D

-> http://www.naturalne...nimal_rape.html


Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#38 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1114 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 08:06 AM

Not only penguins. There are also cases of dolphins raping seals or other animals, sometimes even in the blowing hole, so the "partner" suffocated. Or there was a viral video of a dolphin copulating with a dead fish. One observation I made for myself is, that apparently this "sick" behaviour is more common, the more intelligent the species is.



#39 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 36144 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 08:49 AM

Animals do not torture/wound/kill to copulate. They can enrage the partner but not torture/wound/kill in the process. So I can say there is no "rape" in other species. If the copulation is intraspecies.

 

 

Do you even know what the definition of rape is??



#40 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 723 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 08:54 AM

"Slavery is clearly immoral"

 

Wellllllllllllll, slavery is considered moral by christian doctrine too (a "good" slave is a good son of God who can conquer the eternal life being a good slave), so speaking about "morality" of this or that thing is a slippery slope :P

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn't so clear a few centuries ago.  It still isn't clear in some areas of the world.

 

 

 

In religion slavery is a metaphor. A huge allegory that goes as a synonym for all followers.
 

 

 

If you're going to throw out statements like that you should probably define your terms.  What do you mean by "LGBT rights"?  What do you mean by "natural"?

 

 

 

 

The question shouldn't be "why should something be a right", it should be, "why shouldn't something be a right?"  Why would you want to limit adult behaviour that doesn't cause anyone harm? As for whether it's a waste of time, you might get different opinions from those people it actually affects.

 

​When talking about LGBT rights, let's get a few things straight: usually we start with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which under broad interpretation, extensively might include expansive rights for LGBT communities. There's also some non mandatory UN Resolution but the Council of Europe has recommendations of its own too.

The two major points is ​one​ - equality of chances, and decriminalization and non discrimination. That I agree with completely. The state is not supposed to be an absolute guardian of morality. It's not rational and it's not realistically possible to regulate all human activity. If we have a group of hipsters, let them live as they see fit until they reach maturity.

The ​second​ point is allowing LGBT communities to get civil partnerships (domestic partnerships, it's called variously in different countries) and/or full marriage equivalent to traditional families. On this is my fundamental disagreement. The state should not legalize and get involved in normalizing this situation. My argument is that as long we have torture, capital punishment, rape, religious, racial segregation - why do we talk about LGBT? Far as I'm concerned it's a whim.

 

I collaborated with Amnesty Moldova for a while, but when they got their priorities wrong and started to work more on LGBT, it turned me off. It feels like a recipe for a storm.
And when something happens in the country and things go south - these communities are just part of the snobbish, cosmopolitan, hypocrite hippies that pretend to be over it, even if they helped a protest or some important issue get ignored or misunderstood.

 

 

I view the LGBT community as part of the false liberals right now collaborating with the Russian authoritarian regime, and part of the reason why Ukraine or Moldova never had proper political movements. LGBT contributes to the problem, disorients  society and I'm certain their contribution to the political landscape around the world is approximately the same. They're annoying, they get in the way and they represent everything I hate.

 

 

This is simply not true. Homosexuality is wide-spread in the animal kingdom. Researches have shown that the gene responsible for homosexuality leads to a stronger sex-drive in heterosexual animals (which is why it still exists in nature). Only if this gene is dominant does it result in homosexuality. So basically, you have a majority of individuals with a higher reproduction rate for a few individuals without any repdorduction, which is why (purely evolutionary) it makes sense that homosexuality has not died out, yet.

Apart from that, I don't like the "it is unnatural" argument. Is it "natural" to use artificial weapons instead of any that your body has by itself? Is it "natural" to use the hide of another animal for your own protection? On the other hand, there are several examples of "natural" behaviour, that society does not stand for. One example: Rape; it is very common in the animal kingdom to take your partner by force. This does not mean, that it is ok or common for humans.

 

Yes, animals do that and homosexuality existed for much of Ancient times. I don't accept the evolutionary theory but I do believe that as humans, it's important to realize that homosexuality included is beneath our dignity, our rationality. We are clearly distinguished from animals (or from other animals biologically puritan speaking) by our intellect and rationality. That's why rape is not normal and why IMHO it's much more important to achiev gender equality​ than to pretend that LGBT rights should be thrown in this as well. Human rights isn't a hipster club. There's people that do the work in shadow and others that like to take the credit and get a shiny CV.



#41 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:11 AM

I disagree with you, as gays are often horrifically tortured in Africa and the Middle East. We should push to stop that along with gender equality. That's like saying rescuing the Gypsies and Cripples from their death camps gets in the way of saving Jews from their death camps.

#42 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:12 AM

Also, what the fuck? Liberals don't like Russia, and Russia routinely mistreat LGBT people.

#43 Sotha

Sotha

    Vertical Contest Winner

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5551 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:15 AM

Interesting discussion here.

 

Yes, animals do that and homosexuality existed for much of Ancient times. I don't accept the evolutionary theory but I do believe that as humans, it's important to realize that homosexuality included is beneath our dignity, our rationality.

 

Heh.. I always thought that sexual preference is similar to food appetite. Someone likes fish, someone don't, and someone enjoys everything. People are different. This is a blessing! With what right do we define what is "beneath the dignity of the humanity". Not everyone needs to be the same.

 

I could just as well declare that those who think like you just wrote are "beneath the dignity of the humanity." That would be just daft, right?

 

Speaking philosophically LGBT rights don't matter because it's not natural.

 

With this logic, you could declare a lot of stuff unimportant by declaring it unnatural.

 

 

Like the right to marry a tree or a cat. "Scientists conducting research in the field and assessing that homosexuality is also love" are just delivering a political thing, waste of time.

 

This argument is strange. Humans with different sexual orientation exhibit consent to each other. A cat and a tree do not show consent.

People are sometimes attracted by people. Attraction occurs according to the preference of the individual. Sounds very natural to me.

 

Also, you cannot write off scientific research just as political waste of time. If you go down that road and abandon science, you will soon be one those who believe climate change is a china conspiracy, the earth is flat, and creationism is true.

 

Science is the best method we have for finding out what is true and what is not. You cannot dispel data that was acquired with careful study, just by saying "I think it is not true, political waste of time." If you do this, you will cherry pick just stuff that supports your world view and your views will be skewed. This is very bad. Skewed world view is very difficult to correct later on, because typically humans hold on to their existing beliefs very firmly even though all evidence shows otherwise. Such is human nature.

 

You need to do a careful opposing study and present it for the scientific community for critical analysis. In time correct data will be obtained and a reliable consensus will be reached. If it was published in a good journal, and the theory has not been challenged by better ones, then it is probably close to the truth, until better data is obtained. This is the humanitys best method for understanding the universe! Far better than "I think it is so."


  • Judith and Destined like this
Clipper
-The mapper's best friend.

#44 Judith

Judith

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 450 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:27 AM

It's not only a matter of taste, it's also genetic, as Destined wrote. I can think of at least 2 examples in my circles, where my friend from university and other colleague from work are lesbians, along with their sisters. And they always were. It was not a fad or phase, or anything like that.



#45 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 723 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:42 AM

Science is good. But Freudian extremes are awful. In my opinion science isn't capable of reaching conclusive answers when psychologists in more closed, private discussions openly state that homosexualism is an illness. For fear of being blamed as a homophobe.

We're still with psychology and psychiatry in its infancy. We practiced lobotomy just half a century ago. At least for this reason laws should not be hurried to change.

 

 

I disagree with you, as gays are often horrifically tortured in Africa and the Middle East. We should push to stop that along with gender equality. That's like saying rescuing the Gypsies and Cripples from their death camps gets in the way of saving Jews from their death camps.

 

 

Also, what the fuck? Liberals don't like Russia, and Russia routinely mistreat LGBT people.

 

I'll tell you why. The right to not be tortured/killed/harmed is absolute just as the right to life. It does not distinguish from what you see yourself as. That's the purpose of anti-discrimination laws against LGBT. Yes, it makes perfect sense here. But not IMHO to legalize same sex marriage and domestic partnerships, adoptions of children by these couples etc. etc.

​Liberals are despised in Russia. But the honest ones like Nemtsov or Lystiev get murdered.

The ones who are under control, on a leash, who are sons and daughters, done favours and stuff for rich ruling class elite have protection and so they go about compromising any idea. Including that of a working opposition in Russia and elsewhere in the post soviet space. This is mostly cheap pop stars mixed with hysterical tasteless TV bloat starting from Boris Moiseev, to Natalia Morari to Sobchak (ex-mayor of Moscow and his daughter) and so on.

Obviously they have very liberal lifestyles and thus aren't even fighting for LGBT in reality. Just sort of going with the fad for fame and attention.



#46 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:45 AM

 

Do you even know what the definition of rape is??

For.....(non human) ANIMALS of the SAME species?


Edited by lowenz, 09 April 2017 - 09:45 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#47 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1508 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:49 AM

Not only penguins. There are also cases of dolphins raping seals or other animals, sometimes even in the blowing hole, so the "partner" suffocated. Or there was a viral video of a dolphin copulating with a dead fish. One observation I made for myself is, that apparently this "sick" behaviour is more common, the more intelligent the species is.

OK, but those behaviours are not intraspecies, they are interspecies !

Humans rape other humans and not for reproductive urges.


Edited by lowenz, 09 April 2017 - 09:50 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#48 Sotha

Sotha

    Vertical Contest Winner

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5551 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:59 AM

Science is good. But Freudian extremes are awful. In my opinion science isn't capable of reaching conclusive answers when psychologists in more closed, private discussions openly state that homosexualism is an illness. For fear of being blamed as a homophobe.

We're still with psychology and psychiatry in its infancy. We practiced lobotomy just half a century ago. At least for this reason laws should not be hurried to change.

 

When science cannot indicate what is right, it is a question of values. The location you live in will apply some values on you. I see and acknowledge that you and I have different values.

 

For example, in my country Finland, homosexuality was an abomination in the past. Their rights were non-existent, etc. The values were strict.

 

Now, when time has progressed so have attitudes. Majority of people have absolutely nothing against giving homosexuals the right to get married or adopt children. Scientifically or socially thinking, there are not many justifications why giving these rights would be a bad thing. I guess the typical argument against the rights is that "it was not so in the past." This is a silly reason to block progress.

 

Only a few well-fortified groups of conservatives oppose these liberal changes, but fortunately they will not halt the wish of the majority. For example, some old priests refuse to bless homosexual couples, but young ones are happy to bless them. After a few years, when the old priests die off, everyone will look at this refusal and think "what the heck was that about. A bit backwards thinking perhaps."

 

In Finland, values are not so strict anymore. People can freely be who they are and nobody have the right to judge them for being different. Scientifically thinking, there are no reasons why to prevent these people from getting the same rights everyone else have. I think, it will be good for the economy (and thus the majority of people) that some people are not prosecuted and they can live a full, enjoyable and productive life.


  • Judith likes this
Clipper
-The mapper's best friend.

#49 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 723 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:09 AM

 

When science cannot indicate what is right, it is a question of values. The location you live in will apply some values on you. I see and acknowledge that you and I have different values.

 

For example, in my country Finland, homosexuality was an abomination in the past. Their rights were non-existent, etc. The values were strict.

 

Now, when time has progressed so have attitudes. Majority of people have absolutely nothing against giving homosexuals the right to get married or adopt children. Scientifically or socially thinking, there are not many justifications why giving these rights would be a bad thing. I guess the typical argument against the rights is that "it was not so in the past." This is a silly reason to block progress.

 

Only a few well-fortified groups of conservatives oppose these liberal changes, but fortunately they will not halt the wish of the majority. For example, some old priests refuse to bless homosexual couples, but young ones are happy to bless them. After a few years, when the old priests die off, everyone will look at this refusal and think "what the heck was that about. A bit backwards thinking perhaps."

 

In Finland, values are not so strict anymore. People can freely be who they are and nobody have the right to judge them for being different. Scientifically thinking, there are no reasons why to prevent these people from getting the same rights everyone else have. I think, it will be good for the economy (and thus the majority of people) that some people are not prosecuted and they can live a full, enjoyable and productive life.

 

What makes you say that this is progress? Homosexuality is not prosecuted anywhere criminally except muslim countries today (btw why extremists hate us).

 

We say that it's not a bad thing to give them equal marriage rights to us - but is that out of generosity or ignorance? Most people just don't want to argue with LGBT and just to let them slide on this one. But that's not tolerance. This is an absence of dialogue. It's ignorance and accepting something without even taking a thought about it. It's two different things.

 

The truth is - people still don't see LGBT people as normal and prefer to ignore them. This is an illusion of progress. I repeat, Japan - one of the most advanced countries in the world still hasn't legalized same sex marriages and its Constitution directly restricts this.
​I see no interdependence of legalizing same sex marriages when most of these people are also not exactly the people to work their lives to feed 3 or more children. They want a comfort zone. They are not a real movement as the feminist movement was (which is respectable and admirable from every point of view).

​Economic growth happens when the demographic crisis of an aging Europe is overcome. That's the priority. Not adopting children by LGBT's.

 

Again, when we have the luxury to talk about LGBT, these things are accepted to a limited degree only in Europe - in big parts thanks to the European Convention it is enforced with the ECHR activism. Something that Russia hates to guts. Most importantly to protect human rights without consideration of their belonging to sexual orientation or any other criteria. Africa, the Middle East will never have an analogy of such an instrument in the foreseeable future. Are we truly setting our priorities right?


Edited by Anderson, 09 April 2017 - 10:12 AM.


#50 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:17 AM

False. Democratic Republic of the Congo imprisons gays and encourages lynchings of them, all thanks to Christian Missionaries propping up their dictator.
  • Anderson likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users