Should Uganda receive foreign aid from the UK with the Passage of anti-gay lesgislati
Scroll to see replies
Original post by clh_hilary
Then why should aids be given? Ignoring the fact that it'd be implicitly supporting the current regime, you are still imposing your own values onto them. Why should they need money to buy anything? Why do they need all the things that the west considered essentials?
Regarding your last paragraph, christianity is the major driving force behind current-day homophobia, and it's certainly a thing introduced from the west. You would be in this case clearing up the mess you've created.
Regarding your last paragraph, christianity is the major driving force behind current-day homophobia, and it's certainly a thing introduced from the west. You would be in this case clearing up the mess you've created.
I think it's long been known africa use currency and traded with other cultures long before we took africa over. We're not providing things that westerners see as essential (in the uk for example internet access may quite seriously become a right), but what is necessary for people to survive. Is the need for food and water not real?
Actually homophobia in the christian church started because by this point all people in the roman empire where citizens. By law from the creation of rome and the greek city states adult citizens were not allowed to be penetrated (aka they could give and not receive).
Many european, asian and african cultures had taboo's against certain aspects of homosexuality long before Christianity came along. Most christian practices come from non Semitic cultures. Even paganism in north africa affected it's teaching seeing the first chrisitan stronghold in the roman empire were in north africa.
Original post by Peju
Firstly, it is our business. We are providing aid to them.
No its not their 'right'. 'Discriminating' & rights do not go hand in hand.
Please reflect over what you said. It is NO ONE'S democratic right to discriminate against others. That argument could be used during the 1950s America,Nazi Germany, etc. Your argument seems to imply those were okay.
If discrimination is occuring. World leaders have a right to intervene & say what they are doing is wrong and if they are refusing to oblige, we kick them where it hurts. Money.
No its not their 'right'. 'Discriminating' & rights do not go hand in hand.
Please reflect over what you said. It is NO ONE'S democratic right to discriminate against others. That argument could be used during the 1950s America,Nazi Germany, etc. Your argument seems to imply those were okay.
If discrimination is occuring. World leaders have a right to intervene & say what they are doing is wrong and if they are refusing to oblige, we kick them where it hurts. Money.
And why do we give them aid?
Actually independent countries technically have the right to do whatever they want. Whether the international community or UN agree with it, is another matter, but nothing forces countries to be part of any organisation.
Did the majority of germans want jews to be gassed? I doubt it. Also I never said such things are right.
What I was saying democracy is majority rule, I personally don't personally believe in pure democracy as it has flaws. Democracy is not about right or wrong or liberty. It's the aspect of the people ruling themselves, for better or for worse.
If 70% of the population voted BNP and wanted racist policies, in a democracy it should happen otherwise it's no longer a valid democracy. It's one of democracy's major flaws.
Original post by DanB1991
I think it's long been known africa use currency and traded with other cultures long before we took africa over.
But you don't need to reinforce them, giving them even more money to discourage them from looking for a new way.
Original post by DanB1991
We're not providing things that westerners see as essential (in the uk for example internet access may quite seriously become a right), but what is necessary for people to survive. Is the need for food and water not real?
It is possible that if enough people die, the resources will be sufficient for everyone, and they can build the economy from the ground up from there. Why can't the government tries this out then? Why does the west insist on keeping them alive?
Original post by DanB1991
Actually homophobia in the christian church started because by this point all people in the roman empire where citizens. By law from the creation of rome and the greek city states adult citizens were not allowed to be penetrated (aka they could give and not receive).
Actually the homophobic phrases in The Bible predated this period of time.
Original post by DanB1991
Many european, asian and african cultures had taboo's against certain aspects of homosexuality long before Christianity came along. Most christian practices come from non Semitic cultures. Even paganism in north africa affected it's teaching seeing the first chrisitan stronghold in the roman empire were in north africa.
Many European, Asian, and African cultures also had gay-friendly practices, it's definitely not universal that gays were hated, and needed to be killed like they are now.
And did you not read when I said current-day?
Original post by clh_hilary
But you don't need to reinforce them, giving them even more money to discourage them from looking for a new way.
As I said it's not our place to intervene on their laws, it's up to their own people.
It is possible that if enough people die, the resources will be sufficient for everyone, and they can build the economy from the ground up from there. Why can't the government tries this out then? Why does the west insist on keeping them alive?
Because that breaks our own laws.
Actually the homophobic phrases in The Bible predated this period of time.
Tell me when did christianity exist? Greek and roman laws concerning such things come from traditions that date back from around 1650 BC. The old testiment was not made standard until the 3rd century BC, and the new testiment not standardized until after 150 AD with additions going until the 1600's. Even then such teachings did not leave the near east and enter Europe until around the 2nd and 3rd century. Anti-homosexual laws in rome and greece predate that by around 500 years.
As such all writing in the new testament where mostly built on romanized norms and values. Virtually all teaching in the new testament have basis in roman, greek and Egyptian paganism to name a few (seeing most if not all canonized versions were written by greeks). Even then most anti-homosexual laws in the near east, greek, roman, punic, african, and asian world pre-date 'any' Hebrew or christian influence.
The reason Christianity gets so much flak today is because it set's so many of our norms and values today and in our liberal world is the only force that still opposes homosexuality in the west. Historically it was no more oppressive against homosexuals than the majority of religions it replaced.
Many European, Asian, and African cultures also had gay-friendly practices, it's definitely not universal that gays were hated, and needed to be killed like they are now.
And did you not read when I said current-day?
And did you not read when I said current-day?
Firstly many practices even back then demanded the death of homosexuals. In Europe for example any male citizen who was penetrated.... was put do death. Only non citizens or slaves where exempt as they were seen as not full humans.
Also many cultural practices of these kind pre-date any christian interference with some notable exceptions. Yes it was not universal, but 'gays' are still not universally hated to this day.
Original post by DanB1991
You didn't, but much of the wealth in Europe that you now enjoy is the result of the European land grab of Africa.
In effect we're known as the first world because all our wealth was effectively stolen from countries we conquered and is what still props us up to this day.
In effect we're known as the first world because all our wealth was effectively stolen from countries we conquered and is what still props us up to this day.
You failed to answer my question - as a moral nihilist, how is that inherently bad and therefore inherently requiring Europe to pay some form or moral or financial debt?
Original post by Lady Comstock
You failed to answer my question - as a moral nihilist, how is that inherently bad and therefore inherently requiring Europe to pay some form or moral or financial debt?
If my country steals from someone else I see that as wrong, seeing my countries own laws and morals state such things are illegal.
However my country also makes it illegal to force other countries to pass the laws we want for the same reason.
As I said I still have my own moral standards (even though deep down I recognize there's no such thing), but as a nihilist I do not see anyone else's moral standard are inferior or superior as they are just as valid (which no moral standard is).
Original post by DanB1991
If my country steals from someone else I see that as wrong, seeing my countries own laws and morals state such things are illegal.
However my country also makes it illegal to force other countries to pass the laws we want for the same reason.
However my country also makes it illegal to force other countries to pass the laws we want for the same reason.
Can you elaborate please? The above does not read in a way which makes sense to me. Are you saying that your country's laws shape the way you see things?
As I said I still have my own moral standards (even though deep down I recognize there's no such thing), but as a nihilist I do not see anyone else's moral standard are inferior or superior as they are just as valid (which no moral standard is).
But I don't understand your previous comments that colonisation was "wrong" and therefore requiring the payment of a debt if the moral standards of the Europeans at the time are just as valid as your own. By saying that a debt should be paid, you are saying that your view of morality (that colonisation = bad) is superior to that of the Europeans at the time who believed that colonisation = good.
Original post by DanB1991
You didn't, but much of the wealth in Europe that you now enjoy is the result of the European land grab of Africa.
In effect we're known as the first world because all our wealth was effectively stolen from countries we conquered and is what still props us up to this day.
In effect we're known as the first world because all our wealth was effectively stolen from countries we conquered and is what still props us up to this day.
I've already addressed this. I don't claim I haven't benefitted from the resources taken but that doesn't make me guilty of the crime. Given the size of modern economies guilt by association would make everyone guilty, even the people you claim are the victims have in some manner interacted with economies founded on colonialism.
You also completely ignore the a crucial aspect- choice. I had no say about what happened in the past and no choice into which society I was born. As an individual I have simply interacted with the society I was born into (a situation I was forced into) and haven't done anything to Uganda. Since I did not chose to make this society the way it is at the cost of Uganda, why should I feel guilty for simply existing? You are attempting to treat this like a justice system viewing it as crime and consequence when possibly the most crucial aspect of justice is choice, of which I had none. What action are you claiming is unacceptable and makes me guilty (benefitting from a crime is not an action it is a consequence)? Throughout human history there have been many injustices which don't have the opportunity to be resolved why are westerners alone expected to suffer for the sins of their ancestors when no one else is held to that standard.
Benefitting from a crime doesn't make you a criminal, choosing committing the crime does. Would you fine someone who's father was a thief?
Original post by DanB1991
Then you do not understand Nihilism. Nihilist's do not lack morals or ethic's themselves. Just they believe they are created with a social and cultural context and automatic rights or ethics do not truly exists without a person giving it a social meaning or context.
Basically you technically have no rights unless someone else or yourself decide you have them. However equally if you believe you have rights or someone else does, if another third party decides against it, you no longer have those rights.
So for example if something happened to my family, would I feel wronged? Yes? Would I want justice/revenge? Yes. However do I believe if our culture/society was different those things could be completely acceptable or allowed? Yes, because I believe the only reason we see those things as wrong is because it's how we're socialized and raised.
It's like now how we see freedom as a human right. In Africa (where slavery continues in a literal sense) many believe otherwise. If you look in ancient history every ancient culture widely accepted slavery. As such morals are far from universal.
If you say one culture is better than another, or one culture is savage and needs to change, then your pretty much using the same reasoning that imperialist's used as an excuse to conquer area's like Africa in the first place.
Basically you technically have no rights unless someone else or yourself decide you have them. However equally if you believe you have rights or someone else does, if another third party decides against it, you no longer have those rights.
So for example if something happened to my family, would I feel wronged? Yes? Would I want justice/revenge? Yes. However do I believe if our culture/society was different those things could be completely acceptable or allowed? Yes, because I believe the only reason we see those things as wrong is because it's how we're socialized and raised.
It's like now how we see freedom as a human right. In Africa (where slavery continues in a literal sense) many believe otherwise. If you look in ancient history every ancient culture widely accepted slavery. As such morals are far from universal.
If you say one culture is better than another, or one culture is savage and needs to change, then your pretty much using the same reasoning that imperialist's used as an excuse to conquer area's like Africa in the first place.
Of course morals are given to things, by people, just like all other values. Even science works this way; the scientific principles of reason and evidence are things which scientists value in order to do their science. The axioms of number theory are valued in mathematics, for their ability to yield unforeseen results. But just as a "scientific" value system which rejects reason and evidence in favour of superstition and tradition would be (or rather, is - think of religion) inferior to actual science, similarly a moral system which places no value on human liberty is inferior as a way of achieving human well-being.
In short, your claim is tantamount to the claim that human well-being is either (a) not worth valuing or (b) completely independent of anything other than what we have been taught to believe. The logical extreme of your case would be that it would be okay to flay children and rape their skin-less corpses on national daytime TV, if that is what our culture told us to do. The fact is, your claim would only make the slightest bit of sense if the less civilised peoples of this Earth were members of a different species to the more civilised ones, and were open to a narrower range of human experience. I do not believe this to be the case, because every society on Earth including the enlightened ones evolved out of barbaric ones. (Not in the biological sense of course.)
Take the example of slavery, since you mentioned it yourself. Societies which today repudiate slavery (e.g. Britain and America) once believed it to be an acceptable enterprise. Guess what - they were utterly wrong about what constitutes a free society. 18th century Britain had to, and did, change its attitudes towards slavery. Sudan needs to do the same if it wants to be regarded as anything other than an uncivilised joke of a society in the 21st century.
19th century imperialists were right that Africa needed to change. They were perhaps wrong about the best way to do it. Regardless, just because somebody commits a crime and uses X as a justification for it, does not automatically discredit the principles contained within X.
Original post by DanB1991
As I said it's not our place to intervene on their laws, it's up to their own people.
From this I take it you would have been a vociferous defender of the Apartheid regime, and oppose sanctions against them?
Original post by felamaslen
I think there are probably a large number of different ways of achieving human well-being, however there is a much larger number of ways of achieving grinding misery and poverty. Uganda is presently following the path to grinding misery and poverty, so it needs to be guided by a more enlightened culture.
Original post by hfhfkfkfj576453
Could you post some stats of British vs. Ugandan happiness and per capita wealth (including national and personal debt)?
I bet there's a lot of LGB Ugandans that would score low on happiness.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by AWJChadders
It would be a greater threat if that was the case
A- it still shouldn't stop us from being worried about minorities being persecuted.
B- it's not like failure to persecute non-heterosexuals will result in the persecution of heterosexuals. It's more likely that the persecution of non heterosexuals will result in greater persecution of some heterosexuals who happen not to agree with the persecutors.
Essentially it'd be nice if no one had to face persecution regardless of the percentage of the population that they constituted.
Original post by clh_hilary
Can you elaborate? I fear I'm not really following.
So why don't we (Whites demand our taxes be spent in accordance with our needs and desires)? Because we're intimidated by the monolithic media bellowing down to us about how it'd be stupid, crazy, evil merely to seek to control our own countries the way the media owners control their own country, Israel. Other stuff too: bought-off politicians, military, academia, but that's about it. They just won't let us. OK, R.Sole?
Original post by hfhfkfkfj576453
If what was the case?
If majorities were actually being persecuted.
Original post by hfhfkfkfj576453
When will you start being worried about the persecution of majorities, a more apparent problem in the West?
When will you start being worried about the persecution of majorities, a more apparent problem in the West?
I don't see there being a problem in the west, but if this is truly the case then enlighten me. I would be worried about the persecution of anyone
Original post by hfhfkfkfj576453
Hypothetically. It makes sense because we have seen that minorities who go against the minority supremacy agenda are persecuted. Did you ever raise the point you make here in order to support majority rights?
First of all I don't think I'm better than anyone else because I'm bisexual. It would make no sense to argue that I'm better than a heterosexual person in any way. My 'minority supremacy agenda' as you put it is for people to ignore who has a relationship with who, and for it not to be that much of a big deal. I would support majority rights if somehow heterosexuals were being persecuted, just like the most heterosexuals support gay rights in the UK, because like me they're reasonable people.
Original post by hfhfkfkfj576453
No-one innocent and doing no harm, sure.
Have I harmed anyone by not being heterosexual?
Original post by hfhfkfkfj576453
Could you post some stats of British vs. Ugandan happiness and per capita wealth (including national and personal debt)?
They wouldn't be relevant. Happiness and human well-being are very hard to measure. Clearly, prosperity is better than poverty. Poverty is no joke. Lack of liberty is no joke. A country in which gay people are free to be gay is better than one in which they are persecuted for it.
Original post by Aoide
I've already addressed this. I don't claim I haven't benefitted from the resources taken but that doesn't make me guilty of the crime. Given the size of modern economies guilt by association would make everyone guilty, even the people you claim are the victims have in some manner interacted with economies founded on colonialism.
You also completely ignore the a crucial aspect- choice. I had no say about what happened in the past and no choice into which society I was born. As an individual I have simply interacted with the society I was born into (a situation I was forced into) and haven't done anything to Uganda. Since I did not chose to make this society the way it is at the cost of Uganda, why should I feel guilty for simply existing? You are attempting to treat this like a justice system viewing it as crime and consequence when possibly the most crucial aspect of justice is choice, of which I had none. What action are you claiming is unacceptable and makes me guilty (benefitting from a crime is not an action it is a consequence)? Throughout human history there have been many injustices which don't have the opportunity to be resolved why are westerners alone expected to suffer for the sins of their ancestors when no one else is held to that standard.
Benefitting from a crime doesn't make you a criminal, choosing committing the crime does. Would you fine someone who's father was a thief?
You also completely ignore the a crucial aspect- choice. I had no say about what happened in the past and no choice into which society I was born. As an individual I have simply interacted with the society I was born into (a situation I was forced into) and haven't done anything to Uganda. Since I did not chose to make this society the way it is at the cost of Uganda, why should I feel guilty for simply existing? You are attempting to treat this like a justice system viewing it as crime and consequence when possibly the most crucial aspect of justice is choice, of which I had none. What action are you claiming is unacceptable and makes me guilty (benefitting from a crime is not an action it is a consequence)? Throughout human history there have been many injustices which don't have the opportunity to be resolved why are westerners alone expected to suffer for the sins of their ancestors when no one else is held to that standard.
Benefitting from a crime doesn't make you a criminal, choosing committing the crime does. Would you fine someone who's father was a thief?
The government to this day does this... it's called seizing criminal assets or handling stolen goods depending on the context.
Original post by DanB1991
The government to this day does this... it's called seizing criminal assets or handling stolen goods depending on the context.
This example just doesn't match your argument.
In this case the items are those direct gained from the crime or are taken from the guilty party and compensation given to the victim. What you are suggesting is taking from the criminal's children something they have legitimately earned and giving it to the descendants of the victim.
The current UK residents haven't committed any crime so it isn't seizing criminal assets and since money isn't the resource taken it can't be classed as stolen goods.
Do you plan on responding to the numerous other arguments I expressed or are you just going to concede that your suggestion we owe Uganda anything is nothing more than a plea to emotion?
If they cannot respect all people, we should not pretend they do. That's my view, if they spend more time worrying about persecution and not those who are in need, they do not deserve it and to be quite honest, the UK is in no position to lend money to anyone.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Geert Wilders's far-right PVV wins most seats in Dutch election
- I would like to apply to a US university from the UK.
- who is donald trump
- I want to be a surgeon.which course should I take.
- Medical elective in Tanzania
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Can I get a friend?
- UK Universities for a Masters in Public Health on Scholarship (Int Students)
- Assistance with unusual situation
- UCAS Qualifications section - foreign qualifications?
- US Law School- UK applicant
- Is it time for change - is the status quo about to end challenged?
- Emmanuel Katto Uganda | what car is It.. Let Me Know.
- i thought russell was anti imperiaist? or did i read this wrong?
- MA in Law vs LLB
- Read & Marking History A-level Essay on American Dream
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Delimma for international students in London
- Applying to foreign universities
- Countersignatory for first adult passport from overseas
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
