ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
How about people with clear neurophysiological defects which predispose them to acts that will harm others?
Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread
- Thread starter Araysar
- Start date
- Status
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,168
- 172,403
Here we have a commonly used tactic of the gay lobby. If you disapprove of anything they do, no matter how heinous, outrageous or offensive - you are a homophobe. First pioneered by the Zionists, expertly co-opted by the gays. A tried and true tactic that never fails to smear an opponent with zero evidence.Gotta love how when debating a law that is aimed at mainstream portrayals of homosexual relationships, Araysar keeps mentioning gay porn in primetime.
He really is scared of gay people.
Why should they give a fuck about what you want to hear? Because you have the political power to stop them from speaking? That's not an ethical justification. That's just might makes right.
There's a difference between thinking they should do that and thinking they shouldn't be prevented from doing that. I don't think people should publish books that question whether the holocaust happens. I also don't think people should be prevented from publishing books questioning whether the holocaust happens. Inflicting my preferences on others as the law of the land requires a much higher burden of justification than merely having preferences in the first place.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,168
- 172,403
So we went from kids being exposed to gay propaganda to burning books on lawns.
And they called my argument a hyperbole.
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 9,143
- 32,068
You do. I do. Mikhail does. Zyyz does. Everyone chooses every time they turn on the TV. Or turn it off. No one is forcing you to watch it.
Simple as that.
If you think we need more goddamn subjective laws to keep porn off NBC then you are delusional. First time that happens, they lose every single sponsor and go bankrupt. Why do you hate Capitalism so much?
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 9,143
- 32,068
Harm to others is precisely the justification I've pointed to before. It's a problematic one for you to invoke, because there's no way for you to actually demonstrate in the case of the interdiction you're advocating for.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Optimal in this case is a matter of aesthetic preference. If you prefer freedom, for example, you'll choose communism.
What makes you think there needs to be officially designated guiders of morality at all?
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Why not? Who is to say right now a group isn't tracking individuals who are exposed to certain media outlets from an early age to track how they develop and turn out as adults?;
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Examples of communist nations that were or still are beacons of freedom and human expression please.Optimal in this case is a matter of aesthetic preference. If you prefer freedom, for example, you'll choose communism.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Considering morality is most definatley both biological and social how can there not be?
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 9,143
- 32,068
I would love it if you could find where I advocated children being forced to be exposed to gay propaganda. That falls under the parents responsibility. OF course I don't want the gay pride parade running in front of elementary schools. But I also don't want Jesus freaks preaching in front of elementary schools. I don't want Tea Party Patriots protesting in front of elementary schools. I don't want 3 really hot girls making out in front of elementary schools.
But guess what, you don't need fucking decency laws to stop all of that from happening. There's plenty of laws already on the books to protect our children when they are out of our sphere of influence.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,168
- 172,403
In a civil society there is always a compromise to be reached. If 90% don't want to hear that fag shit, their wishes should be respected, thus a compromise is reached. Keep your fag shit to yourself and we won't stomp you into the dirt. I get where you are coming from that human rights should be respected, etc. But the one thing you forget is that human rights isn't natural law, it is an artificial human construct. We are the ones who grant those rights to begin with.
If the gays think that with their 2-3% of the population, that they are above that sort of compromise, let them keep acting how they want. Then they shouldnt be surprised when they get a backlash the likes of that in Russia.
I have the option of buying that book or not and learning about that material or not, as does my kid. My kid doesnt have the option of NOT being exposted to 2 dudes kissing each other, or some activist handing out gay propaganda.
Thats the distinction that is being made.
Russia isnt banning gay movies, gay books or gay bars. It is establishing a law that requires people to respect a moral standard held by the vast majority of the country in our commonly shared public space.
I don't see what is so difficult about understanding this, or whats so difficult about respecting the wishes of the 90%.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
You are disapproving of gay people being allowed to show their normal relationships.
You keep mentioning how you are just against gay porn being shown to kids. You know that is absurd and that the law in russia is worded to sound like that but the real intent is to stop mainstream portrayal of gays. It is just like poll tax laws talking about wanting to make sure people are smart enough to understand the issues, when in fact they were specifically designed to disenfranchise black people. No one with any intelligence is fooled by the silly wording of the law or its real meaning.
You advocating "absolute rule by the majority" is pretty fucking scary too. No one of any decency supports racist or bigoted laws based solely on what the majority wants.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,168
- 172,403
There is a law to stop 3 hot girls from making out in front of a school?
What's this law called?
Nebulous allusions to evidence gathered about a hypothetical mass media system that we don't actually have aren't equivalent to actually providing that sort of evidence. I'm perfectly willing to go out on a limb and say you don't have any such evidence and that until you do, you haven't actually provided any reason for anyone to believe your claims about harm. Moreover, given that you're not obligated to consume media (unlike say, medicine or food) the harm is that of someone deliberately walking into someone else's outstretched fist. You'd also have to show that the harm isn't self-inflicted (which is completely impossible).
- Status