I think it has been successfully implemented because of the evidence (as opposed to naked ideological assertion) I've already given you (and other evidence besides that).My theological convictions? You are the one who seems to be holding an idea that has never been successfully implemented above all others.
I live where the community standard suits me. I dont understand why its so difficult. I dont live in Singapore because I dont want to be caned if I absent mindedly spit gum on the sidewalk, I dont live in Saudi Arabia because i like to see tits hanging out and drink a beer, and I dont live in Zimbabwe because I dont want to carry a duffel bag of money to the store to buy a loaf of bread.For the sake of the hypothetical, that place is Russia.
You know why you have to do that instead of providing an ethical argument for why that minority should be compelled to remain silent in public places is entirely "might makes right." As soon as the hypothetical changes to one where the majority insisting that they remain silent doesn't have that might then the argument is over. That is not an ethical basis for what you believe. That's just "gays are icky and I don't want to see it and I happen to be in a position where I don't have to." That's not going to be compelling to anyone who didn't already agree with you.
1. I've already said like 20 times I don't want to derail the censorship debate.Mik, even with araysar you require evidence for his viewpoint while simultaneously offering none for yours.
You have provided zero evidence.1. I've already said like 20 times I don't want to derail the censorship debate.
2. I've already given you evidence.
I didnt take my kid to a gay pride parade. This guy marched in front of my house where I live while I was walking my dog with my kid.If you take your kid to a gay pride parade, without knowing full well he would be exposed to that nonsense, then you are an idiot. There's no involuntary exposure to the gay lifestyle going on there. It's 100% voluntary.
Sure is.Isn't it? What's the reason to enforce laws if NOT to prevent harm? I'm really curious what you think here.
Outward displays of faggotry offend me as it does the vast majority of Russians. And 100% of Russian legislators. Thanks for the well reasoned and vigorous debate.No, but youmightwant to have a well reasoned and vigorous debate among your legislators and the people who elect them before and during the time they're planning to curtail freedoms.
Also, I don't think it takes much debate to show what's wrong with thieving, robbing, murdering, and raping. I think that it's pretty easy to show harm in that case. I think if you really had evidence of that kind of strong link to harm in the case of teh gayz being all homo in public, this conversation would have ended much sooner.
Of course it is. Moreover, that's not the part I'm abstracting on. The hypothetical I'm talking about has to do with where power lies. That's very important because if your argument has more substance than "we have the power to stop you from doing this so you have to" then it will withstand that hypothetical. If there's a good reason for it, it's still a good reason even when you don't have the power to force other people to comply. THAT is the reason for the hypothetical.The scenarios you come up with are ridiculous. A community decency standard isn't some hypothetical you can discuss in the abstract.
Murder is wrong because you're harming another person. Its rightness or wrongness is absolutely conceptually orthogonal to the matter of legality.Here let me try.
Is murder wrong or not?
Wrong.
Why?
Because you deprive another human being of a right to life, blah blah blah
OH, so what if a society declared that murder would be legal? Still wrong?
If we're living in a society where murder isn't illegal and we have some ability to alter that then yeah. Of course, that's a really short debate because the harms of murder are obvious. The harms of the behavior you want interdicted by the state are not obvious.And then what are we going to do? Debate whether murder is wrong or not?
Because it was crushed from the outside militarily in order to prevent the threat of a good example during a period of heightened revolutionary activity.Why does it not exist in practice today if it the best means of governance then?
I gave you two examples. It's not my fault you're too lazy to read.You have provided zero evidence.
Stop either intentionally misrepresenting what the law is about or just not caring because you are a bigot. It was already illegal to hand porn to 8 year olds. This law was deliberately worded vaguely to give an excuse for law enforcement agencies in russia to shut down shit like Brokeback Mountain. The government in Russia is deliberately trying to equate pedophilia with homosexuals. It is despicable and it is very disappointing to hear you defend it. You are on garglemkchimpies side on this issue, check your bigotry.Who's not letting them watch their movies, etc? No one.
Enough of this lie.
Do you have any evidence that it is beyond your opinions on the matter?Sure is.
And I think it is harmful for my kid to be exposed to a gay rally or some guy handing out gay propaganda.
Offend and harm aren't equivalent.Outward displays of faggotry offend me as it does the vast majority of Russians. And 100% of Russian legislators. Thanks for the well reasoned and vigorous debate.
Sure. Why not?Is it OK for anyone to just walk around naked in the street?
Those hardly going as evidence that communism is the best means of governance.I gave you two examples. It's not my fault you're too lazy to read.
How would you know? You don't know anything about them because you haven't done any homework yet. You're the kind of lazy cunt that gets his news from the television.Those hardly going as evidence that communism is the best means of governance.
lolYou are the worst kind of person. A dip shit with a BA who does nothing with his life, but who thinks he is better than everyone else and knows what is best for them while at the same time looking down upon them. No wonder you are arguing araysar so vicariously, you are a giant faggot
You have a kid and live in NY City now? Hmmm, ok.I didnt take my kid to a gay pride parade. This guy marched in front of my house where I live while I was walking my dog with my kid.
Lets say it wasnt this guy. Lets say it was just any naked guy walking down the street.
Is it OK for anyone to just walk around naked in the street? How is capitalism and free market going to help me there?
If you don't agree with the community standard then you will leave. Pretty simple. You're example of a gay guy walking around with his dong hanging only happens in communities who adhere to that standard. And if you don't like it, then you will move somewhere else. You said it yourself.I live where the community standard suits me. I dont understand why its so difficult. I dont live in Singapore because I dont want to be caned if I absent mindedly spit gum on the sidewalk, I dont live in Saudi Arabia because i like to see tits hanging out and drink a beer, and I dont live in Zimbabwe because I dont want to carry a duffel bag of money to the store to buy a loaf of bread.
I guarantee you don't. Go back to masturbating to the manifesto.How would you know? You don't know anything about them because you haven't done any homework yet. You're the kind of lazy cunt that gets his news from the television.
lol
I guarantee you I do work that's more technically challenging than you. I don'tthinkI'm better than you. I look down on you because IknowI'm better than you.