Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderator: Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.

What generally desribes your religious beliefs?

Agnosticism
6
8%
Atheism
32
42%
Bahá'í Faith
0
No votes
Buddhism
1
1%
Christianity (including LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses)
8
11%
Confucianism
0
No votes
Hinduism
1
1%
Islam
1
1%
Jainism
0
No votes
Judaism
3
4%
Shinto
0
No votes
Sikhism
0
No votes
Taoism
1
1%
European polytheism
3
4%
Wicca
0
No votes
New Age spirituality
1
1%
Other
6
8%
None
13
17%
 
Total votes: 76

yggdrasil
Posts: 50
Joined: 2005-06-08, 14:18
Real Name: Михаил
Gender: male
Location: Москва
Country: RU Russia (Российская Федерация)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby yggdrasil » 2013-08-30, 13:04

linguoboy wrote:
yggdrasil wrote:That's right. But I have come to that conclusion not at once.

You still haven't explained how you came to this conclusion. Every time someone asks you to clarify what actual "harm" you think homosexuality causes, they get another weasely answer.


Should I? You have not explained why homosexuality is positive either. Frankly, I think it's quite pointless trying to convince you it is not. If I find some study stating how and why gayness is harmful, you'll find another in its favor. Do you doubt that such researches exist? This is just a waste of time. It is one of those issues that cannot be definitely proved or denied. It's a matter of personal choice. I think it is bad. You think otherwise. Who's right? Time will tell.

yggdrasil wrote:Objection! I never supported violence and oppression. If you re-read my posts I have always defended the position of law. In case of Pussy Riot it was them who committed an act of violence.

Overruled! You charged Pussy Riot with committing "spiritual violence" because they expressed views which a majority of Russians strongly disagree with. You have expressed views which a majority of members of this forum strongly disagree with. If Pussy Riot are guilty of "violence", then so are you and--according to you own interpretation of the law--should be punished.

And yet you still have the chutzpah to cry "hypocrisy".


That's right. According to my vision I may be punished if the majority thinks so. But that is in the contradiction with YOUR views that freedom of speech is sacred. You see, your own vision is internally inconsistent. You say that every opinion has the right to be heard (note that I don't think so), on the other hand you support banning me, because you don't like what I say. Who is hypocritical now?

yggdrasil
Posts: 50
Joined: 2005-06-08, 14:18
Real Name: Михаил
Gender: male
Location: Москва
Country: RU Russia (Российская Федерация)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby yggdrasil » 2013-08-30, 13:07

linguoboy wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:Just because he's not showing understanding doesn't mean that you shouldn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's true enough as far as it goes. But sometimes wronging someone is the only way to get them to realise how they're wronging others. Have you never heard the saying, "A liberal is just a conservative who's been booked"?


Bingo! Sometimes freedom of speech is still relative? You see now?

Ludwig Whitby
Posts: 3665
Joined: 2009-03-30, 13:44
Gender: male
Location: Belgrade
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby Ludwig Whitby » 2013-08-30, 13:51

linguoboy wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:Just because he's not showing understanding doesn't mean that you shouldn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's true enough as far as it goes. But sometimes wronging someone is the only way to get them to realise how they're wronging others. Have you never heard the saying, "A liberal is just a conservative who's been booked"?

Sometimes, like in this particular case, I think it is much better to lead with example.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23331
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby linguoboy » 2013-08-30, 14:17

yggdrasil wrote:Should I? You have not explained why homosexuality is positive either.

I'm not arguing it is. Homosexuality exists. The default assumption is that it's neither positive nor negative. You feel strongly that it's negative, though, so clearly you believe you've seen some convincing evidence. Share with us what it is so we can evaluate it for ourselves.

yggdrasil wrote:Frankly, I think it's quite pointless trying to convince you it is not. If I find some study stating how and why gayness is harmful, you'll find another in its favor. Do you doubt that such researches exist?

If you don't know how to properly evaluate a research study, then I suppose one looks as good as another to you. But if you know how to judge the soundness of their assumptions and methodology, you can separate those which actually prove what they set out to from those which fall short.

yggdrasil wrote:This is just a waste of time. It is one of those issues that cannot be definitely proved or denied. It's a matter of personal choice. I think it is bad. You think otherwise. Who's right? Time will tell.

Frankly I think time is already telling.

yggdrasil wrote:That's right. According to my vision I may be punished if the majority thinks so. But that is in the contradiction with YOUR views that freedom of speech is sacred. You see, your own vision is internally inconsistent. You say that every opinion has the right to be heard (note that I don't think so), on the other hand you support banning me, because you don't like what I say. Who is hypocritical now?

For the record, I do not support banning you. It's enough for me that you support banning yourself.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 5397
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Novi Sad
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby Saim » 2013-08-30, 14:18

Ludwig, If I understand your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's this:

-"Russian society has its own culture and values (including homophobia) that should not be critised/interfered with by Westerners"

Couldn't that just as easily be reformulated as:

-"Western society has its own culture and values (including universalism and gay rights) that should not be critised/interfered with by Serbs"?

Moreover, you seem to mix the ethical, morally relativist argument:

Russia wants to be strong while you're not allowing them to do that.

[...]

It is nonsense according to you. It is the truth according to the Russians.

[...]

Different countries and different cultures have different views on what constitutes the civil rights of minorities.

[...]

You can't just march there and tell them that they've got a wrong moral code and you've got the correct one.

[...]

Respect Russia's and Russian society's freedom to choose their own rules, even when you think they are wrong.


with essentially strategic arguments:

They will go all the way to the wall to defend their right to do what they want to do and what they think is right.

[...]

No. They don't want to do what ever the West wants to make them do. The more pressure you put on them, the more they would be determined not to do it.

[...]

The more pressure you put on them, the more they would be determined not to do it.


Were you to accept then, hypothetically, if Western criticism were (not military intervention, just talking) were to be effective in protecting Russian homosexuals, that it is then morally acceptable? Or is it simply wrong to impose your morality on someone else fullstop?

My last and most important problem with what you're talking about is you seem to see the sovereign state as an isolated unit of humans that should not be interfered with by any analogous unit. Why should be accept this as the most important unit of human organization? Why does respect to sovereign states (which represent power and narrow economic interests, not the interest of the whole community it has sovereignty over) and national identities (which are manufactured and exploited by the former) trump respect to sexual diversity? If morality is relative, then we're all essentially communities with competing interests and values - and the interests and values of part of the West happen to align with that of Russian queer folk, no?

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23331
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby linguoboy » 2013-08-30, 14:25

linguoboy wrote:
yggdrasil wrote:Despite that linguoboy called me a nut.

I did? Where?

Still waiting for you to substantiate this accusation. (You do know that making a false accusation is a crime in most jurisdictions, don't you?) I've reread all my replies to you in this thread and I can't find where I said this or anything remotely similar to it.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

Ludwig Whitby
Posts: 3665
Joined: 2009-03-30, 13:44
Gender: male
Location: Belgrade
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby Ludwig Whitby » 2013-08-30, 15:05

I think that Serbs are European and thus also Western. At first Serbs were culturally Byzantine, but ever since the Great Serb Migrations and the liberation of Serbia from the Turks we have chosen the European path. The Serbian elite was schooled in either Vienna or Paris and we have a long history of being European. For example:

wikipedia wrote:Сретењски устав (1835) је први модерни српски устав. У њему су изражене потребе српског друштва: национална еманципација, разбијање феудалних установа и аутократске владавине. Устав је рађен по узору на француске уставне повеље од 1814. и 1830. и белгијски устав од 1831. године. Сретењски устав је такође један од првих демократских устава у Европи.
Творац Сретењског устава је Димитрије Давидовић, учени Србин из Аустрије (Земун) и књажев секретар.


We might not be European in origin, but Europe has adopted us. 1990s are an anomaly, something like Serbs getting in a fight with Europe and shouting "Europe is not my real mom and dad!!"

Were you to accept then, hypothetically, if Western criticism were (not military intervention, just talking) were to be effective in protecting Russian homosexuals, that it is then morally acceptable? Or is it simply wrong to impose your morality on someone else fullstop?

It would be acceptable, if by just talking you don't mean blackmails and boycotts. It is wrong to impose your morality. It isn't wrong to advise them to re-evaluate their morality. They shouldn't be coerced. They should be able to freely choose to change their morality.


My last and most important problem with what you're talking about is you seem to see the sovereign state as an isolated unit of humans that should not be interfered with by any analogous unit. Why should we accept this as the most important unit of human organization? Why does respect to sovereign states (which represent power and narrow economic interests, not the interest of the whole community it has sovereignty over) and national identities (which are manufactured and exploited by the former) trump respect to sexual diversity? If morality is relative, then we're all essentially communities with competing interests and values - and the interests and values of part of the West happen to align with that of Russian queer folk, no?

That was mostly me trying to explain the way Russians and many Eastern Europeans think, it doesn't fully reflect my thoughts on the issue. The problem with the fact that the West is allied with the gay community is the fact that Russia feels threatened by the West. I mean look how badly communists and socialists were treated in USA back when Soviet Union still existed and USA felt threatened by it.

User avatar
Johanna
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 6552
Joined: 2006-09-17, 18:05
Real Name: Johanna
Gender: female
Location: Lidköping, Westrogothia
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby Johanna » 2013-08-30, 19:51

Allied with the gay community?

More like allowing it to even exist without too many repercussions, but gays still face a lot of prejudice and bad feelings towards them, it's just that those things aren't state sanctioned any more. If you look at the West as a whole anyway, and even within countries it can be pretty divided.
Swedish (sv) native; English (en) good; Norwegian (no) read fluently, understand well, speak badly; Danish (dk) read fluently, understand badly, can't speak; Faroese (fo) read some, understand a bit, speak a few sentences; German (de) French (fr) Spanish (es) forgetting; heritage language, want to understand and speak but can't.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23331
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby linguoboy » 2013-08-30, 20:18

Johanna wrote:Allied with the gay community?

Yeah, I thought that was an odd (and very telling) choice of words myself.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10658
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby mōdgethanc » 2013-08-30, 20:54

Ludwig Whitby wrote:It would be acceptable, if by just talking you don't mean blackmails and boycotts. It is wrong to impose your morality. It isn't wrong to advise them to re-evaluate their morality. They shouldn't be coerced. They should be able to freely choose to change their morality.
I was never talking about imposing anything or coercing anyone, only politely suggesting that the state's job is to protect its citizens, even the ones nobody likes, and that it ought to stop people from getting beaten up in public.
Saim wrote:My last and most important problem with what you're talking about is you seem to see the sovereign state as an isolated unit of humans that should not be interfered with by any analogous unit. Why should be accept this as the most important unit of human organization? Why does respect to sovereign states (which represent power and narrow economic interests, not the interest of the whole community it has sovereignty over) and national identities (which are manufactured and exploited by the former) trump respect to sexual diversity? If morality is relative, then we're all essentially communities with competing interests and values - and the interests and values of part of the West happen to align with that of Russian queer folk, no?
That was more or less the point I was trying to make to Ludwig: states are arbitrary, and even cultures are to some extent, but morals shouldn't be. I don't believe that morals are absolute in the sense of being like divine command theory, but I do believe that they should be universally applicable. So if beating your wife is illegal in Canada, because it harms someone, it ought to be illegal in Pakistan. Whereas if pointing the sole of your foot at someone is frowned upon in Cambodia, but it doesn't actually harm anyone, it's just a social convention, not morality.
yggdrasil wrote:Should I? You have not explained why homosexuality is positive either. Frankly, I think it's quite pointless trying to convince you it is not. If I find some study stating how and why gayness is harmful, you'll find another in its favor. Do you doubt that such researches exist? This is just a waste of time. It is one of those issues that cannot be definitely proved or denied. It's a matter of personal choice. I think it is bad. You think otherwise. Who's right? Time will tell.
This was such a perfect example of a non-answer that seems to address the issue but doesn't actually address it at all that you really ought to consider a career in politics.
Despite that linguoboy called me a nut.
No, I called you a nut. (I suspect linguoboy is in broad agreement with me here, but if he is, he's too polite to say so.)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 23331
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby linguoboy » 2013-08-30, 21:13

mōdgethanc wrote:
Despite that linguoboy called me a nut.
No, I called you a nut. (I suspect linguoboy is in broad agreement with me here, but if he is, he's too polite to say so.)

Thanks for clarifying that. I guess all us Western liberals sound the same to him.

(And it's not just that I'm trying to be polite; I think "nut" is a fundamental mischaracterisation. As I explained to meidei in a PM, I don't agree with yggdrasil's political or moral philosophy, but he's much more reasonable in the way he discusses it than most antigay bigots I've debated online.)
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Yserenhart
Posts: 782
Joined: 2009-11-09, 2:56
Country: BE Belgium (België / Belgique)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby Yserenhart » 2013-08-30, 23:55

yggdrasil wrote:Well, I can imagine a debate calling for revision of the law without actually advertising homosexual relationships. These are different things. Public debate is not against the law. Such debates are routinely going on on TV and everywhere.

How do you give a debate on whether or not the law should be repealed without advertising that the minority opinion exists?

“We should repeal the law, because it’s harming minorities.”
“How and who?”
“I can’t say, because it breaks the law that should be repealed.”
“Well, that just shows nobody’s being hurt, if you can’t even say who is.”

Or maybe:

“We should repeal the law, because it’s harming minorities.”
“How and who?”
“Homosexuals and anyone with a view contradicting that of the church and majority”

“You stand charged with spreading propaganda against, and causing offence to, the church, how plead you?”

See the problem?

No. I don't support silencing opinions contradicting that of the majority. But I do support legislation that prohibits spreading information aimed at undermining social morale in Russia. There is a "red line" as they say in America. As for other countries I don't care. It is not my business. I can only say, and this is my private opinion, that widespread homosexuality in the Western countries is a clear indication of moral decline and tendency to self-destruction of the West. Homosexuality presents a completely distorted image of what human sexual relationships should be. Advertising of homosexuality is harmful to children. It is our duty to protect them against such unwanted information.

By supporting legislation that prohibits the spreading of information you support the silencing of contrary opinions. One cannot confer an opinion without providing information.

Homosexuality is inherently harmful to children, especially teenagers (the rest of you, don’t get pissed off at me yet, keep reading). Wherefore is it so harmful?

The answer is due to things like this very law. Portraying homosexuality as a negative, oppressing and silencing opinions to the contrary, and trying to force a view onto someone only serves to alienate them. Funnily enough, it turns out that alienating a teenager, or young adult (or even older people), and teaching them that they are evil, harmful, degenerate (morally, spiritually, physically, whatever), or such things can, and often does lead them to suicide.

Furthermore, those who are sexually active may well lose the benefit of being able to get education and support for things such as safe sex. I understand that HIV incidence increased by about 12% in Russia last year, and that while most of that was from narcotic use, some of that was from sexual transmission. Other STIs can also be very harmful, even fatal.


Why should you ban me? I didn't address anyone using derogatory names, did not express hatred or anything of that sort. If you are going to ban me just because you don't agree with what I say that speaks a lot about your understanding of freedom of speech. But if the majority will decide that I should be banned - ok, I will accept it and have no hard feelings.

I should ban you because you are "spreading information aimed at undermining social morale" in Unilang. Didn’t you say earlier in your post that you supported laws against such things?

The majority doesn’t decide if you should be banned, just if they don’t like your opinion. Kind of like what happened in Russia I suppose, with that law. I’m guessing you didn’t get a vote on whether or not it became law, and that was decided by a small group. Something tells me that majority in Russia have greater things to concern themselves with than the existence of homosexuality.

As far as I know Old Norse had special derogatory terms describing passive male homosexuals: argr and others. Not sure about active ones. Maybe they were tolerated. Anyway that does mean the traditional Scandinavian society accepted gays in the modern sense of the word.

If you’d read those things I linked, you’d see that in one of them those terms are talked about, and it is put forward that they may well have been used regardless of the user’s opinion on homosexuality. It’s like how if one wanted to incite someone to fight in Texas one might well call the person a queer, even if one was indeed homosexual, just because some words are almost always fighting words to a certain population (and yes those of you who live in Texas, I know that’s quite stereotypical, and I don’t believe all Texans are of the sort, it was just making a point).

Set wrote:No I didn't. I mean that if he is banned from this site it's not comparable to what's happening in Russia. This is a voluntary virtual community and he doesn't have a 'right' to be here, he can carry on living perfectly normally without being on here. It's not to do with freedom of speech.

You did miss my point. It has everything to do with freedom of speech and hypocrisy. In a way, my threat to ban him was comparable, in a small-scale to the situation in Russia, intended to get him to think about how it is to be in that minority position, under the threat of being silenced and having your opinion oppressed. It’s the closest I can get to completely reversing the actual situation, and a good way to make people consider how it is for the opposite view.

yggdrasil wrote:It seems you missed mine. I wanted to say that freedom of speech is relative depending on the situation. Linguoboy & Co say it is absolute. The irony is that it is Yser who alledgedly speaks on behalf of the freedom of speech tries to ban me. If he does so, I win because I say yes, freedom of speech is relative. Everyone tries to silence the opponent by administrative means when he runs out arguments. Those who say freedom is absolute must hold to it all the time. Doing otherwise is called hypocrisy. Ranting about freedom of speech and at the same time trying to quench the opposition. Is that freedom of speech? I can even speculate about hypocrisy as the main pillar of Western power. But it is of course if I won't be banned from this place. Let's see freedom of speech in action.

If I seriously wanted to ban you, you wouldn’t have been able to post this. At no point have I tried to silence you, and I’m nowhere near out of arguments. At no point have I been hypocritical, indeed if anyone has displayed hypocrisy it is you. I have repeatedly invited you to bring forth and back up your beliefs, even if I did do in such a way that it appeared to you that your view was being silenced, for that was the whole point, to put you in the place of the opposition instead of the majority, under a similar threat to that faced by the minority in Russia.

You won’t be banned, for you haven’t yet broken any rule just by having a contrary opinion to the majority; however, you have shown your hypocrisy by stating you should not be silenced under the same laws as silence the minority in Russia.

meidei wrote:I strongly believe that this was Yser's point. That despite you being the offending person here (just like gays are in Russia), he wasn't going to ban you for that reason. But if you didn't had double standards, you would realise that just like it would be wrong to ban you, it is wrong for Russia to silence gay citizens.

I might have banned him, had he agreed that it would be deserved—in line with his beliefs on the law in Russia—for I value the opinions of members here, and would hate to force a different belief or value on them when I could so easily go along with theirs.

yggdrasil wrote:Objection! I never supported violence and oppression. If you re-read my posts I have always defended the position of law. In case of Pussy Riot it was them who committed an act of violence.
It seems your understanding of freedom of speech changes to fit the situation. In other words you agree to grant full freedom of speech to those who pleases you, but you are trying to silence anyone with whom you disagree. My position is different.

If you defend the position of a law that is oppressive and discriminatory in its word, nature, or application, then you support oppression and discrimination. In the case of Pussy Riot, I have not heard of any violence committed by them, just being offensive to the majority opinion, admittedly in a stupid way that doesn’t help their position, but nothing to be labelled as violence.

Noöne here has tried, nor will try, to silence a contrary opinion, unless it is outright and immediately likely to be harmful to members, or people reading; it breaks the laws that this forum must abide by; or it breaks the policy set in place for the forum. Debate on the merits and validity of opposing views does not amount to silencing; indeed almost everything I’ve read has been encouraging you to keep speaking and to provide defence for your position.
Native: Derbyshire English (en-GB)/New Zealand English (en-NZ) Learning: Vlaams (nl-BE)

User avatar
Yserenhart
Posts: 782
Joined: 2009-11-09, 2:56
Country: BE Belgium (België / Belgique)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby Yserenhart » 2013-08-31, 0:51

yggdrasil wrote:You still don't get me. Yes, I think double standards is the rule. Everyone uses double standards. It is you who does not want to recognize it and pretends being objective.
Yes, I think it is right to prohibit the gays in Russia to spread their propaganda, because the majority wants that. That how democracy works. Absolute freedom is utopian. In some cases it can and should be restricted, especially when there is consesus in the society regarding the issue.
No, I should not be banned from this place, because:
1. It is against YOUR (not mine) idea that freedom of speech is absolute. If it is behave accordingly, otherwise it is the same double standards I am talking of.
2. I have not said anything personally insulting anyone. Despite that linguoboy called me a nut.
3. There was no voting.

1. It is against your idea to have absolute freedom of speech, therefore you saying you shouldn’t be banned because it restricts your freedom of speech is a double standard.
2. You have expressed opinions and shared information that people find offensive. Which, if you will remember, was the whole point behind me asking if I should ban you, to keep in line with the law you support.
3. This forum is not a democracy, there will never be a public vote on banning you, it will be decided by a small group of people. The same way as laws are made in Russia, funnily enough; small group, rest of the public doesn’t have say.

yggdrasil wrote:Should I? You have not explained why homosexuality is positive either. Frankly, I think it's quite pointless trying to convince you it is not. If I find some study stating how and why gayness is harmful, you'll find another in its favor. Do you doubt that such researches exist? This is just a waste of time. It is one of those issues that cannot be definitely proved or denied. It's a matter of personal choice. I think it is bad. You think otherwise. Who's right? Time will tell.

Time has told, with a record of homosexuality in all areas of the world for centuries being tolerated.

Dallas Morning News. Evidence of gay relationships exists as early as 2400 B.C.
Herdt, G.H. Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia
Coello de la Rosa, A. “Good Indians”, “Bad Indians”, “What Christians?”: The Dark Side of the New World in Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés
Hinsch, B. Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China.
Penrose, W. Hidden in History: Female Homoeroticism and Women of a “Third Nature” in the South Asian Past
El-Rouayheb, K. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800

That's right. According to my vision I may be punished if the majority thinks so. But that is in the contradiction with YOUR views that freedom of speech is sacred. You see, your own vision is internally inconsistent. You say that every opinion has the right to be heard (note that I don't think so), on the other hand you support banning me, because you don't like what I say. Who is hypocritical now?

Noöne supports banning you, that whole choice was to ascertain how strongly you supported that particular law. Noöne has contradicted his or her own views, seeing as almost no other person who has replied to you gets any say at all on who gets banned.

Please keep in mind for your future replies that the whole thing about punishing you was about your views, not anyone else’s.
Native: Derbyshire English (en-GB)/New Zealand English (en-NZ) Learning: Vlaams (nl-BE)

User avatar
Set
Posts: 844
Joined: 2010-08-25, 13:26
Real Name: Alex
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Postby Set » 2013-08-31, 7:07

Yserenhart wrote:You did miss my point. It has everything to do with freedom of speech and hypocrisy. In a way, my threat to ban him was comparable, in a small-scale to the situation in Russia, intended to get him to think about how it is to be in that minority position, under the threat of being silenced and having your opinion oppressed. It’s the closest I can get to completely reversing the actual situation, and a good way to make people consider how it is for the opposite view.

But still far from the real thing. Neither the situation nor the implications are at all the same. Just because I don't think your analogy is fulling fitting doesn't mean I didn't understand it. And I'm not sure why your intent on calling me out on that.
Last edited by Yserenhart on 2013-08-31, 7:42, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed the quote
Native:[flag=]en[/flag] Good:[flag=]de[/flag][flag=]ca[/flag] Focusing on:[flag=]fa[/flag][flag=]ku[/flag][flag=]ps[/flag] Interested in:[flag=]zza[/flag][flag=]tr[/flag][flag=]sw[/flag]


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron