Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Got any proper counter to what I've posted apart from "I don't think so lol"?
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Except he did, pal? **** me, you're all so deluded it's actually terrifying.
    Wait a sec, that got posted? I deleted that before posting it because I agree it's stupid... what on earth went on there?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    Woah there, relax for a minute, for somebody yearning for a rational argument, your fervent way of responding even makes Plato turn in his grave. Your insertion of f**ks does not make your arguments any rational either.

    With regard to the first link, please do explain to me how that man's words were hateful or condemnable in any way. He asked her to explain "Brussels"; she could have given him a reply like Cameron's typical bile "Islam is not a religion of hate" and that would have done just fine. It was a question, not an accusation, not a single word of hate. Asking somebody a question, regardless of what you might assume of the person's intention behind that question, does not count as hateful or offensive. If you want to find out more about rationality, I recommend Descartes' Discourse on the Method or rightly conducting one's reason.
    My use of bad language is because I have sat here repeating things over and over and you are all being pedantic and unnecessary. It's out of pure frustration.

    You are seriously being ridiculous about this. You do not just go up to a random person and ask them that; are you also going to tell me that it's a total coincidence she was muslim? Because if so, I honestly have no time for you.

    Don't spout philosophy at me - go read up on Aquinas and learn about the relevance of intention.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Wait a sec, that got posted? I deleted that before posting it because I agree it's stupid... what on earth went on there?
    Yeah, 'k pal.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Yeah, 'k pal.
    No seriously, here's what is posted on my comp screen: "personally I think Russia's come a very long way since the collapse of the USSR. Religious tolerance is pretty good, but yea I do agree that it's severely lacking on LGBT tolerance."

    And actually, I just looked up more recent opinion polls. I've got to admit, you're right. The country has gone incredibly downhill since the polls I originally looked at were taken. It's actually pretty terrifying how low it's gotten. So yea, I retract my previous point.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you do believe in free speech but not free speech.
    PRSOM
    I suggest you don't bother with the overwhelmingly rational responses you get from that user, you won't go anywhere.
    As for free speech, that's a privilege we won't have for long anymore.
    "It doesn't matter if it was free speech, somebody was offended and that's against the law"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    PRSOM
    I suggest you don't bother with the overwhelmingly rational responses you get from that user, you won't go anywhere.
    As for free speech, that's a privilege we won't have for long anymore.
    "It doesn't matter if it was free speech, somebody was offended and that's against the law"
    Grow up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    No seriously, here's what is posted on my comp screen: "personally I think Russia's come a very long way since the collapse of the USSR. Religious tolerance is pretty good, but yea I do agree that it's severely lacking on LGBT tolerance."

    And actually, I just looked up more recent opinion polls. I've got to admit, you're right. The country has gone incredibly downhill since the polls I originally looked at were taken. It's actually pretty terrifying how low it's gotten. So yea, I retract my previous point.
    Good.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    My use of bad language is because I have sat here repeating things over and over and you are all being pedantic and unnecessary. It's out of pure frustration.

    You are seriously being ridiculous about this. You do not just go up to a random person and ask them that; are you also going to tell me that it's a total coincidence she was muslim? Because if so, I honestly have no time for you.

    Don't spout philosophy at me - go read up on Aquinas and learn about the relevance of intention.
    Socrates sat there repeating things over and over to people, and he didn't mind.
    Your frustration seems to originate from seeing people disagree with your views or comments. Instead of acting frustrated, either don't bother or spare your cortisol and offer a calm, yet candid response. That's the first step in having people listen to you, and not being forced to sit there and repeat things.

    We are not being ridiculous, we have our opinions. Who is frustrated over what we see is being written on this thread? Haven't seen another person yet.
    I am pretty sure he was aware she was a muslim from her garb. Again, I am asking you with patience, how was what he asked hateful? As far as I know, you were not supposed to be charged for approaching people and asking them a question. Did he ask her when will her kind go extinct? Or why is she a terrorist? No. He asked her to explain Brussels. Not at any point was she touched, threatened or even forced to answer the question.

    I'm afraid I am not aware of Aquinas' work. Could you explain to me, as briefly as you can what were his views on intentionality? I would love to hear it from you, given that you're implying you know what he meant. Let me know if you want a discussion over Descartes, I'll be happy to share what I know of his essays with you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    Socrates sat there repeating things over and over to people, and he didn't mind.
    Your frustration seems to originate from seeing people disagree with your views or comments. Instead of acting frustrated, either don't bother or spare your cortisol and offer a calm, yet candid response. That's the first step in having people listen to you, and not being forced to sit there and repeat things.

    We are not being ridiculous, we have our opinions. Who is frustrated over what we see is being written on this thread? Haven't seen another person yet.
    I am pretty sure he was aware she was a muslim from her garb. Again, I am asking you with patience, how was what he asked hateful? As far as I know, you were not supposed to be charged for approaching people and asking them a question. Did he ask her when will her kind go extinct? Or why is she a terrorist? No. He asked her to explain Brussels. Not at any point was she touched, threatened or even forced to answer the question.

    I'm afraid I am not aware of Aquinas' work. Could you explain to me, as briefly as you can what were his views on intentionality? I would love to hear it from you, given that you're implying you know what he meant. Let me know if you want a discussion over Descartes, I'll be happy to share what I know of his essays with you.
    I didn't say the direct comment was hateful. He was trying to make a point 'subliminally' if you like. There is a reason why he asked a muslim person. He then made comments about it online. It fuels hateful interpretations of Muslims.

    Through his teleological theory of Natural Moral Law, Aquinas talks about interior and exterior acts and argues for the intentions of a person to be very important in moral decision making and whether or not an action is right or wrong. Although this is not really the thread to have that talk in.

    I will simply agree to disagree with you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    I didn't say the direct comment was hateful. He was trying to make a point 'subliminally' if you like. There is a reason why he asked a muslim person. He then made comments about it online. It fuels hateful interpretations of Muslims.

    Through his teleological theory of Natural Moral Law, Aquinas talks about interior and exterior acts and argues for the intentions of a person to be very important in moral decision making and whether or not an action is right or wrong. Although this is not really the thread to have that talk in.

    I will simply agree to disagree with you.
    Thank you for shedding light on Aquinas. I'm afraid, in that case, I'm not much of in agreement with his views. In the same way I'm not a fan of Kant's categorical imperative. But hey, that's philosophy, it invites people to disagree on things, because you have to think about something in order to disagree with it in the first place.

    It is not, but both of us are mentioning something relevant to the topic with every response.

    In my final response to what is topic-related, it's not yet part of any law to arrest people because you assume that what they said is hateful in any way (or will incite hate). Arresting somebody on hateful action or speech involves proof of hateful action or speech, not assumptions. The man probably went on with his day after that, and had a nice cup of tea, he wasn't joining the KKK or sending anti-muslim propaganda, so I don't see how that fuelled hateful interpretations of muslims.

    I tell my mother how I can't understand how my grandmother can be so backward to believe in the laws of the Old Testament all the time. She's a Christian herself and she does not get offended by it, and neither does my nan. Some of us believe adulterous women should be stoned, others don't...I guess. Questioning somebody's religion is, again, not a crime. And god forbid it will ever be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    Thank you for shedding light on Aquinas. I'm afraid, in that case, I'm not much of in agreement with his views. In the same way I'm not a fan of Kant's categorical imperative. But hey, that's philosophy, it invites people to disagree on things, because you have to think about something in order to disagree with it in the first place.

    It is not, but both of us are mentioning something relevant to the topic with every response.

    In my final response to what is topic-related, it's not yet part of any law to arrest people because you assume that what they said is hateful in any way (or will incite hate). Arresting somebody on hateful action or speech involves proof of hateful action or speech, not assumptions. The man probably went on with his day after that, and had a nice cup of tea, he wasn't joining the KKK or sending anti-muslim propaganda, so I don't see how that fuelled hateful interpretations of muslims.

    I tell my mother how I can't understand how my grandmother can be so backward to believe in the laws of the Old Testament all the time. She's a Christian herself and she does not get offended by it, and neither does my nan. Some of us believe adulterous women should be stoned, others don't...I guess. Questioning somebody's religion is, again, not a crime. And god forbid it will ever be.
    I don't think you understand the point. Because I don't disagree with you on the whole. But I do with this particular angle.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    I don't think you understand the point. Because I don't disagree with you on the whole. But I do with this particular angle.
    I do understand your point, and I see where you disagree. I just disagree with your point entirely :cute:.
    But as you said, let's agree to disagree.
    Name:  t4js2n3hurL-9lz-PypxH2rX_JZkSIek68YNeyrT6ZY.jpg
Views: 77
Size:  27.2 KB
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Germany
    Not the East.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think Sweden too they've let everyone into their country.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Bold 1: "Neither same-sex marriages nor civil unions of same-sex couples are allowed in Russia."
    "A couple can adopt children together, as a couple, only if they are a married heterosexual couple."
    "There have been notable objections to the organization of gay pride parades in several Russian cities, most prominently Moscow, where authorities have never approved a request to hold a gay pride rally. Former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov supported the city's refusal to authorize the first two editions of Nikolay Alexeyev's Moscow Pride events, calling them as "satanic".
    "On 29 December 2014, Russia passed a road safety law, allowing the government to deny driver's licenses to those living confused in Gender Dysphoria categorized as Transgender by the World Health Organization, which listed transgenderism, fetishism, exhibitionism, and voyeurism as examples of sexual disorders."

    Bold 2: "A 2013 survey found that 84% of Russians said homosexuality should not be accepted by society (up from 60% in 2002), compared to 16% who said that homosexuality should be accepted by society. In a 2007 survey, 68% of Russians said homosexuality is always wrong (54%) or almost always wrong (14%). In a 2005 poll, 44% of Russians were in favor of making homosexual acts between consenting adults a criminal act; at the same time, 43% of Russians supported a legal ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2013, 16% of Russians surveyed said that gay people should be isolated from society, 22% said they should be forced to undergo treatment, and 5% said homosexuals should be "liquidated". In Russian psychiatry, Soviet mentality about homosexuality has endured into the present day. For instance, in spite of the removal of homosexuality from the nomenclature of mental disorders, 62.5% of 450 surveyed psychiatrists in the Rostov Region view it as an illness, and up to three quarters view it as immoral behavior. The psychiatrists sustain the objections to pride parades and the use of veiled schemes to lay off openly lesbian and gay persons from schools, child care centers, and other public institutions."
    (yes it's I'm using Wikipedia, but I'm not going to waste time summing up what has already been summed up; the sources are all in the article if you care)

    Bold 3: What even is "LGBT" propaganda? Does it try to convert people to LGBT? Well, LGBT isn't a choice so it's no that. Does it try to again acceptence for LGBT folk? Well that's certainly a good thing unless you're literal scum.
    What the Russian state sees it as is "non-traditional sexual relationships", which while in itself is stupid (LGBT isn't a choice), it's a such a nebulous term as to legitimise the oppresion of those open about their sexuality- "Under the statute it is effectively illegal to perform any of the following in the presence of minors: hold gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships". How is that not intolerence of homosexuality if the law is actively forcing it to be hidden ? Surely you're not that dense.

    General comments: Forcing LGBT "underground" DOES NOT make life better for anyone. Besides them constantly fearing for their wellbeing and having to supress their natural urges, this makes it an all-the-more-stronger taboo, which results in greater oppression and persection. Is there any example of a time where LGBTs were forced to supress themselves where homophobia and persecution of LGBT people wasn't rife, and then didn't begin to lessen when the supression did?
    Allowing LGBTs to be open about themselves allows understanding, from which follows acceptance. Yes, there might be a transitionary period of unrest, but that's true of any change in society.
    There is nothing smart about oppression, ok?
    Well argued, to say Russia is tolerant of the LGBT community or that there is LGBT equality in Russia is utterly absurd, oppression and censorship is not tolerance.

    And yeah, it is ridiculous and sad that campaigns and the movement for LGBT equality, rights and acceptance are labelled and banned as 'LGBT propaganda', it's like describing the civil rights movement in the 1960s in the US as 'black propaganda', campaigning for equality and against hate crime is not 'propaganda' ffs. If anything the real propaganda here is the labelling of an equal rights movement as 'propaganda', making out that somehow LGBT equality and being against abuse and violence is a bad thing :facepalm:

    It doesn't take a lot of research to see the true state of the LGBT community in Russia, there is endless info online that shows Russia's problem with the LGBT community, authorities don't take homophobic violence seriously enough and don't even class it as hate crime, and a study posted on here a couple of years back found Russia to have one of the worst records in Europe for LGBT equality and human rights, scoring just 8% (compared to 86% in the UK), I could post so much more, but I won't, it's all out there, that doesn't sound like tolerance to me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously Saudi Arabia.
    /thread.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Are you actually insane? How in God's name can you even try and argue that the Civil Rights Movement wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to offend others in a derogatory, hurtful, or violent manner? Stupidity literally radiates from every single one of your posts :lol:.

    We can also all express them in a way that is not distasteful
    Who decides what is distasteful? Back then the idea of distasteful would have included the civil rights movement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Who decides what is distasteful? Back then the idea of distasteful would have included the civil rights movement.
    Literally just sign out. You are unbelievably nonsensical.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    My use of bad language is because I have sat here repeating things over and over and you are all being pedantic and unnecessary. It's out of pure frustration
    .
    you are frustrated because people fail to be convinced by your arguments, and therefore resort to bad language ?

    I doubt that it will help a lot
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    you are frustrated because people fail to be convinced by your arguments, and therefore resort to bad language ?

    I doubt that it will help a lot
    No, I'm frustrated that people use the same point like it hasn't already been addressed. It has. Saying it again in a new way adds nothing but welcomes aggravation. What you think will help isn't really much of a concern of mine.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.