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How do you give a debate on whether or not the law should be repealed without advertising that the minority opinion exists?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“I can’t say, because it breaks the law that should be repealed.”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.”
“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.