Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

Uganda: Death Penalty For Homosexuality

Archive: 103 posts

In a nutshell, a bill is being worked on in Uganda that will make homosexuality a crime punishable by death.

The bill is being voted on in 12 hours, please visit here (http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_homophobia_petition_2) for more information, and to sign an opposing petition. At the time of this posting, it needs another 139,000 signatures.		2011-05-11 02:24:00

Author:
Arkei
Posts: 1432

that is horrible. It's not their fault they're like thatD:2011-05-11 02:27:00

Author:
JspOt
Posts: 3607

Oh boy, I love it when the internet comes together to act, effecting absolutely nothing!2011-05-11 02:31:00

Author:
Voltergeist
Posts: 1702

i sense genocide2011-05-11 02:37:00

Author:
wait wtf
Posts: 853

effecting absolutely nothing!

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f364/kiwigirl010/challenge-accepted.png		2011-05-11 02:39:00

Author:
JspOt
Posts: 3607

It's really horrible to hear news like this. I'm positive the petition will reach it's aim and hopefully make an impression on the Ugandan government.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.		2011-05-11 03:04:00

Author:
Mr_T-Shirt
Posts: 1477

well lets hope the petition stops the bill, i dont want another event*which i will not name* to happen2011-05-11 03:20:00

Author:
wait wtf
Posts: 853

I thought we were going forwards, this seems like 2 steps backwards. I just hope it gets up to 1,000,000 or more before 12 hours.2011-05-11 03:54:00

Author:
Joey
Posts: 758

OMG . . .

I cried when I read this and can't stop crying. I'm just in disbelief.

This has to be linked everywhere. All LBP fansites. I even want the US government to see this petition. Does anyone know if theres a way to make them see it?

This isn't right. I'm just . . . speechless.		2011-05-11 04:01:00

Author:
Hana_Kami
Posts: 393

It's not for nothing that they call it the Dark Continent.

It sucks. This was coming when you get an entire continent who have been culturally and technologically oppressed for centuries and suddenly throw them out in a new world era. This is the sort of thought that could be excusable 100, maybe 50 years ago fi you're particularly thick. Not something I'm very happy about seeing in 2011. Not at all happy.

What a mess, what a pity.		2011-05-11 04:20:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

This has gone up at least 75,000 signatures since I posted it, I'm pretty positive that it will reach its goal.

Not sure if it's going to leave any impression on them, though.		2011-05-11 04:33:00

Author:
Arkei
Posts: 1432

This is really abominable! We are all human beings, and since we do not harming anybody, we have the right to choose to live our lives the way we want ... Following is the absurdity of the situation faced by *** ...

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""''
If you declare that you are *** if you do this in public, should be removed from the streets and being arrested, because homosexuality is a crime, "says David Bahati, MP of 36 years and author of the project.

Simply declaring himself *** could lead to life imprisonment. The project also maintains that relatives and neighbors who denounce ***, also under penalty of arrest. And there's even the death penalty provided for in the case of an adult trying to seduce a child of the same sex.

For Bahati, distributing leaflets near schools warning about AIDS should already be considered an attempt to entice. Here, man has sex with a man, is taboo. Sin. Is as horrible as stealing, "said the deputy.

Today homosexuality is already a crime in Uganda, but there's only prison in case of flagrante delicto. Under the new project, just someone to accuse someone of being ***. The Minister of Ethics and Integrity, James Obuturo, which handles the processing of the law in parliament, supports the project.

"From the standpoint of our culture and our spirituality, homosexuality is something abhorrent, "says the minister.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'''''
This is really very sad.........		2011-05-11 04:47:00

Author:
Marysand
Posts: 2

I can't believe more people aren't replying to this thread. This has to be one of the top 5 most important threads ever posted at LBPC.

I wish it was at the top in the grey area where important matters are placed until the 12 hours is up, well then again that usually only has to do with LBP.

I spent the last hour spreading this around, Facebook, Youtube, Second Life.		2011-05-11 05:15:00

Author:
Hana_Kami
Posts: 393

not to be racist or anything but this is a continent that has War Lords, witchcraft, extreme homophobia, genocide so.....yeah im kind of not surprised2011-05-11 05:25:00

Author:
wait wtf
Posts: 853

I can't believe more people aren't replying to this thread. This has to be one of the top 5 most important threads ever posted at LBPC.
I didn't even know how to respond to something like this, it's just that unbelievable. There's probably others who the same as me.		2011-05-11 05:28:00

Author:
SR20DETDOG
Posts: 2431

Taken from Wikipedia . . .

Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda. Gays and lesbians face discrimination and harassment at the hands of the media, police, teachers and other groups. In 2007, a Ugandan newspaper, The Red Pepper, published a list of allegedly *** men, many of whom suffered harassment as a result.[41] Also on October 9, 2010, the Ugandan newspaper Rolling Stone published a front page article?titled "100 Pictures of Uganda's Top Homos Leak"?that listed the names, addresses, and photographs of 100 homosexuals alongside a yellow banner that read "Hang Them".[42] The paper also alleged that homosexuals aimed to "recruit" Ugandan children. This publication attracted international attention and criticism from human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International,[43] No Peace Without Justice[44] and the International Lesbian, ***, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association.[45] According to *** rights activists, many Ugandans have been attacked since the publication.[46] On January 27, 2011, *** rights activist David Kato was murdered.[47] Kato was on Rolling Stone's hitlist. Also a number of other gays and lesbian are missing and are believed to have been murdered.

The Uganda parliament is currently considering the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, if enacted, would broaden the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or engage in same sex sexual acts. The bill also includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations that support LGBT rights. The private member's bill was submitted by MP David Bahati in Uganda on 14 October 2009, and is believed to have wide spread support in the Uganda parliament.		2011-05-11 05:28:00

Author:
Hana_Kami
Posts: 393

this really makes me really wonder whats wrong with this world2011-05-11 05:34:00

Author:
wait wtf
Posts: 853

8,000 more votes to go!2011-05-11 07:06:00

Author:
The age of LOLZ
Posts: 229

I woke up and saw this. ;-;

... Now, I remember a year or so ago, when some African country (may have been Uganda) arrested two *** men and were going to send them to maximum security prison... The USA and the UN and all that stuff threatened to cut off all economic aid if they actually went through with that, and so the country let them go "for humanitarian reasons".

Now, this definitely seems like a much worse thing. While the governments of the world may be waiting to see if it passes into law before doing anything, if it actually does I'd expect all aid to be cut off from them... at least from the US and UN. And since it's probably an impoverished nation who needs money, well, there's a good chance they'd back down if only to keep their masses from starving :/

Anyway... so yeah. it's horrible... Don't really know how else to say it, but on the bright side I wouldn't expect them to exist without the aid they'd lose should they go through with this :/		2011-05-11 11:05:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Signed.

It has a lot to do with this:


Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.		2011-05-11 11:16:00

Author:
Rhys125
Posts: 841

I'm looking at the image on the petition page of a newspaper headline; "Hang them; They are after our kids!!"
Huzzah, well done world/Uganda, you have successfully demonstrated yet another wild, fundamental misunderstanding of what it is you've decided you don't like. Oh, and you're fearmongering in an attempt to tide yet more idiots into your mistruths and general hate spreading, aswell. Smooth.


Looking at the signiture count, it's looking pretty hopeful for the reaching the target. I do however, question the impact this will have. I'm pretty sure the people in favour of the bill are already too hate-filled or misinformed to change their minds based only on a petition.
Also, is there a reason they set the target at 1,500,000, or is it just a large number they wanted to reach?		2011-05-11 16:15:00

Author:
Ostler5000
Posts: 1017

This is wrong. Completely wrong. Its a personnel desicion if someone wants to be homosexual and its childish that Uganda are against it.2011-05-11 16:19:00

Author:
craigmond
Posts: 2426

Found this new article.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Uganda-s-anti-***-bill-delayed-amid-outcry-1375046.php

Although the title of that article sounds promising, if you read it it's not that promising.. "Now parliament appears ready to hold an extraordinary session on Friday to debate the bill, which in its original form would impose the death penalty and life imprisonment in some cases.
The bill's author, David Bahati, has said a new version would not contain the death penalty, but no amended version has been released publicly. Bahati said Wednesday he expected the bill to be debated and passed on Friday."

It's no longer trying to pass the death penalty on gays, but it doesn't sound like it's going to be any better.. probably a very long prison sentence 		2011-05-11 17:53:00

Author:
hilightnotes
Posts: 1230

probably a very long prison sentence

Just wait until they find out what goes on in the prison showers.		2011-05-11 18:36:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

Heck everyone in this forum is smarter than the Ugandan government. We should totally troll them.2011-05-11 18:40:00

Author:
craigmond
Posts: 2426

That is outrageous. I'm signing up to this, it's just appalling.2011-05-11 18:41:00

Author:
Denim360
Posts: 482

Uganda government just don't know that they can't make people change. It's not that hard to understand eh.
Funny how it says "Hang them; They are after our kids" Isn't that a pedophile? I think there's a huge difference between pedophile and homos.
I just hope it reaches over 1,500,000 now that they set the target at 1,500,000 and that the Uganda government can think a little bit before doing that and realize how wrong they are.		2011-05-11 20:11:00

Author:
Joey
Posts: 758

There, signed... And who's up for a coup d'etat? 2011-05-11 20:33:00

Author:
moonwire
Posts: 1627

I have signed and am praying for the best.
This is an issue very close to my heart.		2011-05-11 20:37:00

Author:
Plasmavore
Posts: 1913

Signed.

It has a lot to do with this:

I liked the part where you set up Christianity as a strawman for ignorant people's actions.		2011-05-11 21:27:00

Author:
Voltergeist
Posts: 1702

This is wrong. Completely wrong. Its a personnel desicion if someone wants to be homosexual and its childish that Uganda are against it.

A personal decision!?

Not everyone chooses to be ***.

I am not religious, but at the same time I do believe men and women were created to mate with each other. If someone chooses to be *** then to me it isn't natural, but I would never shun anyone for what they want to do. But for those born in such a way it is natural and I see them no differenlt then any heterosexual person. Natural by definition is normal as a result of birth. I even support *** marriage. As long as no one is causing harm to other people or themselves then there is nothing wrong with them being happy.

So it's silly when people have this debate of either gays are born that way or choose to be. It's both. I spent years some years back studying gender, sex, etc. What's even worse about these people is they're targeting homosexuals which aside from being prejudice is also bias as it says nothing about lesbians. But then to some they think homosexuality implies male and female when really homosexual is a *** male while a lesbian is a *** female.		2011-05-11 21:45:00

Author:
Hana_Kami
Posts: 393

That country seriously needs help. Am speechless...2011-05-11 21:51:00

Author:
Special_D_
Posts: 57

People who keep mentioning continent:
Bad actions from one country should not represent the entire continent of many nations.


Sad to see this news. World needs to move forward to more equality. They don't choose to be ***, it isn't their fault? The world as a whole needs to get this in there head. Sure, I used to find being *** weird when I was younger and thought it was wrong. But they are people. Leave em be...		2011-05-11 22:17:00

Author:
KQuinn94Z
Posts: 1758

There, signed... And who's up for a coup d'etat?

ME!!! *grabs a pitchfork and torch*		2011-05-11 23:47:00

Author:
wait wtf
Posts: 853

Signed, I really think that this is outrageous. Do I need to say more? :/2011-05-11 23:57:00

Author:
abyssalassassin
Posts: 717

Oh boy, I love it when the internet comes together to act, effecting absolutely nothing!

Stop by change.org and see how much the internet REALLY effects the world.
Regardless, have you been on 4chan?

Signed the petition, shared it with my friends. I hope there are enough people to see sense that we needn't another holocaust.		2011-05-12 03:31:00

Author:
Voodeedoo
Posts: 724

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2560/4127917063_fd587f5250_o.jpg
Despite the horrible situation thats one of the best headlines I've seen.		2011-05-12 17:29:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2560/4127917063_fd587f5250_o.jpg
Despite the horrible situation thats one of the best headlines I've seen.

OMG, lol! >o<

What paper is that? It's obviously one of those funny spoof papers you can buy.		2011-05-14 02:24:00

Author:
Hana_Kami
Posts: 393

Dated a girl from there, she was awsome, and she was not homophobic in any way. Her father had to leave because of Edi Amean...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin
...so of all the places to do this I am not too amazed. Hope their government gets their act together because the people I have met from there are amazing...but then again they left the country for a reason.		2011-05-14 04:15:00

Author:
celsus
Posts: 822

The site says the bill has been shelved - does that mean they've decided to stop the anti-*** law? 2011-05-14 11:49:00

Author:
Denim360
Posts: 482

No but it means it has been put aside for now. And to get it straight I think the law is wrong and shouldnt even have been thought about. When I said its a personnel decision I forgot it wasnt. Its the hormones and cant really be helped, for instance all men have female hormones from their mother but the male ones are what make us men. However sometimes people get more female hormones making them homosexual. Also sometimes it is a personnel decisio, sometimes. I think thats what happens. And I wouldnt "Shun" anyone for being gat either.2011-05-14 15:55:00

Author:
craigmond
Posts: 2426

Signed.

It has a lot to do with this:


The funny thing about Christians using Leviticus to justify discrimination is how they ignore everything else in Leviticus--eating shellfish, not owning slaves, consulting weather forecasters (yes, seriously), and so on and so forth. They ignore everything else because the coming of Jesus was supposed to be the fulfillment of the old Law and the start of the new Law--this is why Christians aren't required to keep kosher, nor circumcise their sons, for example.

It's just bigotry and hatred of The Other, using an inconsistent religious justification.


This is wrong. Completely wrong. Its a personnel desicion if someone wants to be homosexual and its childish that Uganda are against it.


A personal decision!?

Not everyone chooses to be ***.

Not anyone chooses to be queer. It is, quite simply, not a choice. The only choice you have in terms of your sexual orientation is whether or not you do anything about it. Who you are attracted to is not a choice.


I am not religious, but at the same time I do believe men and women were created to mate with each other.

If you're not religious, why are you saying people were 'created'? We are the totally random output of millions of years of evolution, nothing more. That most life on Earth has evolved two sexes as a method of shuffling the DNA deck every generation may well be a local oddity.


So it's silly when people have this debate of either gays are born that way or choose to be. It's both.

It is not both. Nobody chooses to be queer. If you are going to argue thta people choose, then you must accept the reverse is also true: people choose to be heterosexual. Could you please identify for me the exact moment youdecided you would be heterosexual? Please, before you answer, understand what 'decide' means: it does not mean trying something and not liking it, it does not mean thinking about it and realizing it doesn't do anything for you. It means looking at your options and picking one. Further, please provide a rational explanation as to why anyone qould choose to be queer knowing they are in for a lifetime of rights being denied, arrest, imprisonment, discrimination, assault...


But then to some they think homosexuality implies male and female when really homosexual is a *** male while a lesbian is a *** female.

You didn't spend enough time studying. 'homo' (as in homosexual, homogenize, etc) means 'same' or 'uniform.' There is absolutely no gender involved in the word. Homosexuality refers to same-sex pairings, whether male or female. And 'hetero' means 'different', thus meaning M/F pairings. Lesbian is just a specific word for female homosexuality that grew out of the history of Sappho (an ancient Greek poet who preferred women) who lived with similar women on an island called Lesbos.


Its the hormones and cant really be helped, for instance all men have female hormones from their mother but the male ones are what make us men. However sometimes people get more female hormones making them homosexual. Also sometimes it is a personnel decisio, sometimes. I think thats what happens. And I wouldnt "Shun" anyone for being gat either.

The hormone theory is one possible explanation, but seems to be extremely unlikely. One theory suggests that all humans have the capacity for homosexual desire (and, indeed, one should look at the prevalence of institutional homosexuality in single-sex environments such as prison, armed forces, and boarding schools--this goes for both men and women by the way), but that it only expresses in a) single-sex environments, or b) situations where the dispassionate forces of evolution need a way to keep some genes out of the gene pool.

It is never a personal decision. Ever. Nobody wakes up and decides "Hey, you know what? I'm going to choose to be attracted to only men (or only women) as of right now." If that were the case, I could make the reverse decision, and decide to be heterosexual. It just doesn't work that way. I could decide to act heterosexual, but that is not in any way the same thing.		2011-05-16 00:44:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

And as a completely separate issue, there's an intriguing moral dilemma here.

Show of hands, how many people would be really angry about people from another country trying to change your laws?

So why is it okay for us to do it? Yeah, we believe we're right. So do the Ugandans.		2011-05-16 00:52:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Those people need to get their heads together in that country.2011-05-16 01:00:00

Author:
Random
Posts: 673

And as a completely separate issue, there's an intriguing moral dilemma here.

Show of hands, how many people would be really angry about people from another country trying to change your laws?

So why is it okay for us to do it? Yeah, we believe we're right. So do the Ugandans.

I guess it'd depend on if my country was trying to commit genocide or not :/

And personally I've always hated the ideas of countries and wished the United Nations was the supreme law of the entire world, or at least some organization from around the world was able to administer all of humanity as one sovereign people... but that's just my dang hippieness talking. So if my fantasy organization of world governments was trying to help the minorities, then I would support it because I like humanity more than any flag.

/communist		2011-05-16 01:08:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

And as a completely separate issue, there's an intriguing moral dilemma here.

Show of hands, how many people would be really angry about people from another country trying to change your laws?

So why is it okay for us to do it? Yeah, we believe we're right. So do the Ugandans.

There's a difference between a law that lets say, fines you a few thousand dollars for speeding and well...

The systematic killing of innocent people because of their sexuality.		2011-05-16 01:12:00

Author:
Maxi
Posts: 1176

There's a difference between a law that lets say, fines you a few thousand dollars for speeding and well...

The systematic killing of innocent people because of their sexuality.

In case you missed it, I'm queer, so obviously there is a difference in terms of severity between the two cases you chose. My point, however, is about sovereignty. How many people would be angry about another country meddling in their internal affairs? Almost everyone, I'd wager. It's just an interesting point. Unfortunately it's derailing from the more important points I raised. I'll reiterate:

- Biblical justification for homophobia is woefully inconsistent unless the people doing it follow all the other rules in Leviticus as well
- homosexuality is never chosen; simple common sense proves this.		2011-05-16 01:19:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

And as a completely separate issue, there's an intriguing moral dilemma here.

Show of hands, how many people would be really angry about people from another country trying to change your laws?

So why is it okay for us to do it? Yeah, we believe we're right. So do the Ugandans.
Imo, it's a non-issue. If I want a law changed it doesn't matter who makes it happen, as long as it's done.

As for why it's ok for others to interfere, I'd say it's because the world has become a much smaller place, there's a single global community in a sense now. A country's community has a say on what happens within that country, and I think the same applies to this global community.		2011-05-16 01:24:00

Author:
SR20DETDOG
Posts: 2431

And what if you don't want a law changed, but the international community tries to force the change upon your country, in violation of your sovereign rights? That's kind of the point I'm trying to make here; it's a moral quagmire.2011-05-16 01:27:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

I agree with Rock - screw your self-imposed and imaginary border lines. These are human beings we're talking about. They're just as human as any American, Spaniard, or Indian. The only thing nationalism has created are baseless assumptions of superiority, and subsequently, wars over said assumptions over superiority, and the idea that they can do whatever they want because they cordoned off some piece of land.

They would be mad, but then again, they're attempting to pass a bill to execute homosexuals, so when it comes to 'moral dilemmas' their opinion is worth jack squat.

I'll respect the fact that you murdered some other dudes for a piece of land which is no different from the one adjacent, when you respect the fact that you're setting up a bill that would kill people for being different, something that they really had no say in anyways, and the subsequent fact that it's wrong, your country or not.

This is where I wonder how people can say evil and good are perspectives - yes, it's good if you're an uneducated and biased homophobe. But we're looking at this logically, which is how the universe was built, so you can't really say this is a matter of perspective.

They think it's good because they don't know any better, because they were taught false facts. But we haven't. We've been raised to think about things, to go beyond stereotypes, so we know we're right.		2011-05-16 01:28:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

And what if you don't want a law changed, but the international community tries to force the change upon your country, in violation of your sovereign rights? That's kind of the point I'm trying to make here; it's a moral quagmire.
If I didn't want a law changed that obviously I'd be unhappy. But it wouldn't matter if (for example) it was Americans trying to change it or people here in Australia, either way I'd be unhappy. The issue would be if America was trying to change a law that the whole of Australia didn't want to change. which I find to be a highly unlikely scenario.		2011-05-16 01:32:00

Author:
SR20DETDOG
Posts: 2431

I agree with Rock - screw your self-imposed and imaginary border lines.

Neither self-imposed nor imaginary, actually. Please don't let idealism blind you to reality.


They think it's good because they don't know any better, because they were taught false facts. But we haven't. We've been raised to think about things, to go beyond stereotypes, so we know we're right.

...which is exactly the same thing they're saying. You're entirely missing the point.		2011-05-16 01:36:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Neither self-imposed nor imaginary, actually. Please don't let idealism blind you to reality.

... wait... how are nation boundaries NOT imaginary? There is no quantifiable way to measure boundaries. Hence they are imaginary. They exist only in our imaginations. Sure, we can ASSIGN meaning to them, like we assign meaning to ANY symbol... yet they ARE imaginary and a way to separate people from each other. Hence why he's saying we shouldn't base law off them. Like, ok. What are national boundaries if not imaginary?

I will go with you with self imposed since chances are their boundaries weren't self imposed, they were imposed by their European conquerors for economic reasons and then left to fend for themselves after they decided to jump ship like Iraq or something :/ So not self imposed by imposed by others, but that's merely a matter of semantics. Anywho...

... Sorry, I had to correct that.		2011-05-16 01:41:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

If you want to have semantic arguments about the meaning of 'imaginary,' go right ahead. Borders are not imaginary in the sense that there are real-world effects arising from them.

Try crossing e.g. the USA-Mexico border without a passport and tell me how imaginary it is.		2011-05-16 01:46:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Well, yes, not imaginary in the standard sense, but if you look at photographs of the earth you don't see border lines unless said borderlines happen to be based on natural occurrences, which some are but are often not.

Now as to your other point, you're trying to imply that my moral standpoint is as baseless as their moral standpoint. I know I sound like some imperialistic white supremacist from the 1500's saying they're all "savages" or something, but I'm not saying this because of cultural difference, or even just geographical ones.

So here, I'll demonstrate my train of thought, and when you can respond to me with an equally composed argument for why this bill can be viewed, objectively, as something acceptable, I shall concede defeat.

Homosexuality, by definition, is the sexual attraction to the same gender. On the contrary, to be heterosexual is to like the opposite gender. The latter is more prevalent and neither of these preferences is compounded by some extra amount of perversion or a need to be sexually deviant. This is all supported by scientific study of human beings.

So now that we have the definitions down, let's break it down. Homosexuals are thought of as a threat by some because they are allegedly corrupt and do obscene things. Aside from the subjectivity of this, homosexuals are no biologically or behaviorally different from heterosexuals aside from their preference. Again, objective data acquired through scientific methods.

So, with that, we know homosexuals are not at all a threat to common society. We know killing is wrong because this is an enjoyable world (this too is subjective, but that's why you don't make the decision for others) and death is often the removal of existence and the zenith of pain, the most unpleasant feeling we have. Ergo, killing is wrong. As such, we reserve killing for those who are an irreparable threat to society (even then, many oppose the death penalty!) or for enemy combatants (I will spare you the essay on why war is often unpleasant).

So, we have this bill, based on a generalization, which according to all objective data, is incorrect, and this bill calls for death, an unpleasant state, to any homosexual, people who are sentient and kind and only in one irrelevant and harmless way, different. Applying the concept of 'deserving', which is that good actions should be rewarded with good things and vice-versa, we see that in fact these human being are not deserving of this punishment. As such, the bill is illogical, and by extension, immoral.

Now tell me, roux-, what do they have? Are you going to strike me with some post-modernist view on how knowledge and reason are truly subjective and that their knowledge is just as valid as mine?

They base their arguments on ancient texts, on generalizations. They do not factor in variables, neurotic pathways and brain behaviors, they don't even bother to take a few minutes to meet one of these people and see they're not at all different.

They think their right, I know I'm right. I'm not dsaying this due to some self-imposed superiority. I'm saying this because I applied concepts which are compliant with the laws of this very universe. Concepts which have lead to revolutionary theories, technological advancements like this machine I'm typing into, heck, the very houses we live in.		2011-05-16 01:53:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

Sigh. You're missing my point. I agree that in this case their law is wrong.

But where do you draw the line at interference in internal politics? How well would Americans react to people overseas trying to push through public healthcare? One could very easily argue, with a lot of factual support, that public healthcare in the USA is a far, far more urgent matter than homosexuality in Uganda.

It's very easy to say "but we're right." And I believe we are. But interfering in another nation's sovereignty is not something that should be taken lightly, particularly when the nations most prone to doing so (oh let's be honest, the one nation most prone to doing so) would freak the smeg out if anyone were to have the temerity to do the same.		2011-05-16 01:59:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

interfering in another nation's sovereignty

Where has the U.S interfered with the Ugandan Bill?
It was of my knowledge that all people have been doing is signing a petition against it.

Has Obama gone and spoken with the Ugandan government?
Have the two governments had any interaction about the Bill?		2011-05-16 02:02:00

Author:
Maxi
Posts: 1176

Citizens of the USA attempting to, via the petitio-

oh screw it, nuance isn't something that anyone around here has much interest in. I keep forgetting that it's different when Americans do it.		2011-05-16 02:03:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

I hate to play devil's advocate....

But you say there's no objective reason why they should not be killed? Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with killing. Killing is a social construct, and in the natural state it is quite common for one to kill.

Now, we can accept this as fact, eys? There are precious few commodities, especially in such a poor place. So goods have to be conserved.

It is the goal of all species to maintain their own dominance. Now, tell me: How are *** people to repopulate the world? They cannot produce more children. Hence, they take resources, yet do not contribute to humanities's future. Thus, to eliminate people who do not contribute to the betterment of mankind WOULD be eliminate. survival of the fittest and all that.

Now, of course I don't believe in killing the gays and the retarded and other people who take yet are not able to fully give back to the species. Yet you spoke of objectivity, and I felt it was my duty to show that morality is SUBjective, not objective, and that the most logical thing to do WOULD be to eliminate those who do not contribute to society. However, it is our subjective human decency that leads us to view some actions as wrong, even when logically they might make more sense.

... And, I'm going to bolt before I end up on FBI's most wanted list >_<		2011-05-16 02:04:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Well in that, I would agree. Obviously when comparing public healthcare and the execution of homosexuals, the line is very clear. Obviously, although I don't think it should be, sovereignty is a big deal with many people.

Obviously, in this case, the answer is clear. Human rights violations are unacceptable. Perhaps I could complain if some outside nation wanted to push health care on me. What right do I have to complain, though, if they're trying to prevent legislature that would permit for the indecent treatment of human beings?

The difficulty, in this case, would not be whether it's acceptable to intervene, but what would be the consequences of said intervention? Therein the problem lies, IMO.		2011-05-16 02:06:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

I keep forgetting that it's different when Americans do it.

Nice generalization.
Yes, we americans are horrible, morally corrupt dictators.
All we want is the ability to exploit everything.		2011-05-16 02:14:00

Author:
Maxi
Posts: 1176

A lot of people from all over the world signed that petition, btw.2011-05-16 02:15:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

Nice generalization.
Yes, we americans are horrible, morally corrupt dictators.
All we want is the ability to exploit everything.

American Exceptionalism <-- google this		2011-05-16 02:18:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Nice generalization.
Yes, we americans are horrible, morally corrupt dictators.
All we want is the ability to exploit everything.

That's a gross twist on a rather true statement. Yes, America DOES get involved in a lot of **** we have no business in. Hell we overthrew two regimes just a few years ago just for the hell of it :/ Not to mention when our government tries to boycott and actively overthrows regimes (many of which are popular, albeit most of my examples ARE from the 1960s...).

So yes, roux is speaking the truth. And honestly I can see where he's coming from with us violating their sovereign rights.

So again in my fantasy world the US WOULDN'T be the dominate power, and the duties we've assumed would be taken up by the United Nations as a collection of all the people of the world... ubt eh, I'll just go now >_>		2011-05-16 02:18:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Oh trust me, I know how many massacres the U.S has committed.
I rarely ever defend the U.S.

If I am to return to your original argument.
The Ugandan government has the right to systematically murder their citizens based on their sexuality.
Yet, nobody should interfere because there is a "border" around where it's occurring.

Is this your argument or not?		2011-05-16 02:27:00

Author:
Maxi
Posts: 1176

It is not, and if you would bother to read anything I've written you would know it's not.

Or you have read what I've written, and you're arguing dishonestly.		2011-05-16 02:35:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Your argument is?

No country should be involved in another countries actions?

Elaborate, because I sincerely don't know your argument.		2011-05-16 02:39:00

Author:
Maxi
Posts: 1176

Nice generalization.
Yes, we americans are horrible, morally corrupt dictators.
All we want is the ability to exploit everything.

So true.

However, I see no point in that statement for this situation.
What (some) Americans do want to do is to stand up for innocent people being accused for being what they are and have no say in the situation.

The ***s of Uganda are being killed for the same reason the Jews were killed in WW2- for believing in what they believe in.

Passing this law is like passing a law to kill all arachnophobics. They didn't do anything that would create a good reason to kill them. They don't even have a choice in being what they are.

It's strange how easily this situation is comparable to a simple bullying on a school playground.

As for borders- I think they are majorly overused. We, as human beings, are all part of a population- the human species. ***s, though not able to majorly contribute to the species through birth, have lives, thoughts, feelings, and rights. Is it not natural to help the lives of innocent people? ***s are no different- they deserve to live. Often we forget that as a species, we are all under the border of humanity. Man made borders make us forget that we are all one species, just as the US is one country, California is one state, and LA is one city. We are constantly fooling ourselves that country borders are more important than species borders. More importantly, using an artificial border as an excuse to let others die is not a good thing.		2011-05-16 02:42:00

Author:
JspOt
Posts: 3607

Your argument is?

No country should be involved in another countries actions?

Elaborate, because I sincerely don't know your argument.

Sigh. My argument is that intervening in the sovereignty of another nation necessarily invites the same sort of intervention in your own. And so such intervention should never be taken lightly. Of course we believe that we are right; everyone believes that they are right. And despite assertions to the contrary, there is no such thing as 'objectively' right or wrong.

Is intervening in Uganda in this case the right thing to do? Of course I believe it is. Of course I believe any right-thinking person believes it is. And according to the tenets of my beliefs, I have the absolute right to impose that freedom on anyone else. I don't have the right to force someone's beliefs to change, but I have the right to prevent them from expression of those beliefs.

The thing is, the Ugandan politicians putting forward these laws feel the exact same way. And so the question becomes, at what point and under what circumstances does intervention suddenly become okay?

To return to my healthcare example from earlier, one could argue quite easily that the failure of the USA to provide adequate healthcare for 300MM citizens is a human rights violation of rather greater impact than the potential killing of a very small minority in Uganda. Every single day people in the USA are forced to decide between even day-to-day medical procedures or buying food/paying rent/etc. When you are simply one careless mistake away from bankruptcy due to treating an injury, there is a serious problem afoot. Or not even a mistake; having a baby in a US hospital costs tens of thousands of dollars for no good reason except unfettered greed and the Randian pursuit of profit.

This is a grave human rights issue. And how would the USA react to attempted international intervention? Not. Well.

One could point to similar problems in other countries; human rights violations regarding freedom of expression of religion in France; persecution and maltreatment of minorities in the UK (or, if you want to go there, the Irish problem in the UK, or if one wishes to stretch the notion of human rights and equality only a little bit, the very existence of the aristocracy and monarchy in the UK); or the treatment of indigenous peoples in my own country, Canada, something that is frankly our national shame.

But none of us take well to anyone from outside our borders trying to intervene. Why do we have the right, therefore, to intervene in Uganda?		2011-05-16 02:54:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

You make some interesting points.
And I will agree with you on this.

But none of us take well to anyone from outside our borders trying to intervene. Why do we have the right, therefore, to intervene in Uganda?

I will leave on this seeing as I have to sleep shortly.

Based on your quote above, countries don't always have the right to intervene. But should at least be able to voice their opinions.
Especially on a situation this grave.		2011-05-16 02:59:00

Author:
Maxi
Posts: 1176

Sigh. My argument is that intervening in the sovereignty of another nation necessarily invites the same sort of intervention in your own. And so such intervention should never be taken lightly. Of course we believe that we are right; everyone believes that they are right. And despite assertions to the contrary, there is no such thing as 'objectively' right or wrong.

Is intervening in Uganda in this case the right thing to do? Of course I believe it is. Of course I believe any right-thinking person believes it is. And according to the tenets of my beliefs, I have the absolute right to impose that freedom on anyone else. I don't have the right to force someone's beliefs to change, but I have the right to prevent them from expression of those beliefs.

The thing is, the Ugandan politicians putting forward these laws feel the exact same way. And so the question becomes, at what point and under what circumstances does intervention suddenly become okay?

To return to my healthcare example from earlier, one could argue quite easily that the failure of the USA to provide adequate healthcare for 300MM citizens is a human rights violation of rather greater impact than the potential killing of a very small minority in Uganda. Every single day people in the USA are forced to decide between even day-to-day medical procedures or buying food/paying rent/etc. When you are simply one careless mistake away from bankruptcy due to treating an injury, there is a serious problem afoot. Or not even a mistake; having a baby in a US hospital costs tens of thousands of dollars for no good reason except unfettered greed and the Randian pursuit of profit.

This is a grave human rights issue. And how would the USA react to attempted international intervention? Not. Well.

One could point to similar problems in other countries; human rights violations regarding freedom of expression of religion in France; persecution and maltreatment of minorities in the UK (or, if you want to go there, the Irish problem in the UK, or if one wishes to stretch the notion of human rights and equality only a little bit, the very existence of the aristocracy and monarchy in the UK); or the treatment of indigenous peoples in my own country, Canada, something that is frankly our national shame.

But none of us take well to anyone from outside our borders trying to intervene. Why do we have the right, therefore, to intervene in Uganda?

Like I said, we are one species. Nature did not provide us as separate countries, but as a single species to care for each other as a species.		2011-05-16 02:59:00

Author:
JspOt
Posts: 3607

If you're going to go there, 'nature' didn't provide a thing. We are random byproducts of evolution, the pressure for DNA to replicate itself. Nothing more.2011-05-16 03:06:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

You're looking at this the wrong way. Health care systems aren't precisely constructed to violate human rights. This is bill that literally says "If you were born a certain way, you're dead". Your arguments do carry water, but that's where you're going wrong, I think.

And, well, yeah. Exactly that. It's best to say that the natural system which we are a part of didn't provide anything at all. You're right, which is his point. What I'm saying is you shouldn't have the right to be an idiot simply because you live in any given parcel of land. I agree sovereignty is important. I just think it's stupid.

(Although I'm tempted to initiate a debate on the merit of humanity and how we're not just merely organisms with the sole function of reproduction anymore, but it's besides the point)		2011-05-16 03:13:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

I am not basing my point on nature- just saying that we are a species, which means that we should help each other, as a country would help others of its own.2011-05-16 03:20:00

Author:
JspOt
Posts: 3607

You're looking at this the wrong way. Health care systems aren't precisely constructed to violate human rights.

There is a very, very strong argument to be made that the US healthcare 'system' is in fact designed to do exactly that.


This is bill that literally says "If you were born a certain way, you're dead". Your arguments do carry water, but that's where you're going wrong, I think.

Yes, I'm quite aware. As someone who was born that way, I think I have something of an idea as to how destructive this bill is.

The point you're missing is that a line must be drawn somewhere, and where is that? If we are going to intervene, we must accept reciprocal intervention, but we don't. What right does a Canadian have to intervene in Ugandan internal policies when we defund programs providing mental health services, directly leading to death? When we consign indigenous people to an empty and barren life on reservations, ruled by corrupt officials, with no outlet but the bottle or a knife to the wrist? (FYI, the highest suicide rates in Canada are, without exception, on First Nations reservations).

What right do French people have to complain about human rights elsewhere when they will not allow Muslim women to express their religious beliefs by wearing hijab?

What right do Americans have to complain about anti-queer legislation when, in many parts of the country, queers--or, more importantly, queer partners--have zero rights that are given automatically to heterosexual couples? When people every day have to make the decision between needed medical procedures and a roof over their heads?

What right do the British have to complain, when you consider the history of the British presence in Ireland, India, the entire continent of Africa?

Do you see the point yet?		2011-05-16 03:35:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

I am not basing my point on nature- just saying that we are a species, which means that we should help each other, as a country would help others of its own.

That argument, on its own, is unpersuasive. Helping you doesn't help my DNA replicate. That's how organisms work.		2011-05-16 03:37:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

I come back to this site, see a horrible article about an inhumane law, and now this argument?

Guys, can't we all agree on one thing here: this new law is stupid and we all hate it. Why argue?		2011-05-16 03:46:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

We do agree on that. There are, however, larger issues at play.2011-05-16 03:55:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

If we are going to intervene, we must accept reciprocal intervention, but we don't.
...
Do you see the point yet?

Oh, well, that I can certainly agree with. As long as said outside source formulates a good argument as to why such a law should be changed I can readily accept that. Of course, many others won't, but then we're back at what we started with: the issue of nationalism/sovereignty.

As I said, it's stupid. I consider myself a human first, American second.		2011-05-16 04:09:00

Author:
Astrosimi
Posts: 2046

Thats sick killing people because of their sexuality!

I'm not saying this because I'm a homosexual, which I'm not, it's just that killing people because a man is in love with another man or a woman with a woman is just wrong...

You can't choose if your a homosexual or not and the people trying to inforce this law must be homophobes and deserve to be killed themselves		2011-05-16 12:56:00

Author:
Unknown User

There isn't a whole lot of point in killing people who kill people in order to show that killing people is wrong.2011-05-16 19:03:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Ok, Obviously the law is wrong - but regarding signing the petition to try and stop it;

Does anyone here actually live in Uganda, or is a Ugandan national living abroad?
Because if not - then it's got precicely nothing to do with you... and a non-Ugandan national should (quite rightly) have absolutely no say in how they govern themselves.

How would America like it if you got a bunch of non-Americans (millions of them) to sign a petition to outlaw the Death penalty in America?
Would it have any effect what-so-ever on Americas position on the death penalty?
No it wouldn't.

Why do you think it's going to be any different in Uganda?		2011-05-18 11:54:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Ok, Obviously the law is wrong - but regarding signing the petition to try and stop it;

Does anyone here actually live in Uganda, or is a Ugandan national living abroad?
Because if not - then it's got precicely nothing to do with you... and a non-Ugandan national should (quite rightly) have absolutely no say in how they govern themselves.

How would America like it if you got a bunch of non-Americans (millions of them) to sign a petition to outlaw the Death penalty in America?
Would it have any effect what-so-ever on Americas position on the death penalty?
No it wouldn't.

Why do you think it's going to be any different in Uganda?

True.

i dont understand the hate for homosexuals and lesbians..		2011-05-18 13:11:00

Author:
Unknown User

True.

i dont understand the hate for homosexuals and lesbians..

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"
Leviticus 20:13

They probably think they are being "good" christians.

Interestingly enough, there is no passages that condemn Lesbians in the Bible - so God must think Lesbians are cool.
Also, there are no Cats in the Bible. 		2011-05-18 13:58:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Interestingly enough, there is no passages that condemn Lesbians in the Bible - so God must think Lesbians are cool.


Everybody loves a Lesbian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5zsxfhAh6Q (external link contains adult humour)		2011-05-18 14:53:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

How would America like it if you got a bunch of non-Americans (millions of them) to sign a petition to outlaw the Death penalty in America?

Yeah, I made that point a couple pages ago. It's a sticky situation; on the one hand it's a human rights issue, on the other hand it's a sovereignty and self-determination issue--which is also about human rights. As a queer man I obviously come down on the side of 'killing queers is wrong, mmkay,' but then I would, wouldn't I?



i dont understand the hate for homosexuals and lesbians..


"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"
Leviticus 20:13

They probably think they are being "good" christians.

Interestingly enough, there is no passages that condemn Lesbians in the Bible - so God must think Lesbians are cool.
Also, there are no Cats in the Bible.

I kinda covered this above, too. Leviticus condemns all sorts of things (it's where one finds the kashruth, for example, the Jewish dietary laws). The coming of the Messiah was, in Christian terms, a fulfillment of the Law; all the old Laws were abrogated in favour of the new Gospels. What this means in practical terms is that Christians are not required to keep kosher, circumcise their sons (and yet a worrying number still engage in the barbaric practice), etc etc. And yet modern day Christists (I use the term to distinguish between those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus versus those who parrot whatever their ill-informed leaders tell them to do) ignore all of Leviticus except for the part about being queer.

And I won't even bother getting into the translation problems which probably indicate that isn't what that particular passage in Leviticus means anyway. Ditto Sodom & Gomorrah, which has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with the practice of gang-raping visitors to those cities, in defiance of the laws which required guests to be treated as one's own family. Onanism, which is used as a synonym for self-gratification, is likewise a misunderstanding; it's about coitus interruptus, not being your own best friend.

Anyway, the fact that lesbians aren't mentioned is neither here nor there. As recently as the late 1800s, when anti-homosexuality laws were being promulgated in the UK, Queen Victoria, upon a minister suggesting that women should be included in the bill, said something to the effect of "Don't be ridiculous. Women would never do that." This is a common feature in patriarchal societal models; women are not seen to have their own sexual agency; they exist as sexual receptacles for men, and that's it. (We will, of course, leave aside the Song of Solomon and the exhortation for rabbis to perform their husbandly duties with vigour and attention to detail, as those really are still about male sexual desire.)		2011-05-18 19:22:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

its coz they eat the poo poo.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wwe9-be2Y2011-05-19 01:38:00

Author:
Unknown User

its coz they eat the poo poo.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wwe9-be2Y

Way to graphic there^.. myerp. Can't direct that just at homosexuals.

Anyways.. this hate against homosexuals in Uganda is nothing new. It's the second time it happens.. but I don't think this time it will end like it did the first time.		2011-05-19 01:48:00

Author:
Joey
Posts: 758

Oh god, if that's the video I'm thinking of, it actually made me shake with rage that someone would deliberately spread such nonsense. Either he's lying and he knows it, or he is so credulous and uncritical in his thinking that someone said this to him once and he believes it.

Yes, on average queer men tend to be slightly more into 'exteme' sexual behaviours than heterosexuals. Yes, queer men often engage in analingus. And yes, disgustingly, some queer men are into coprophagia. But they are a vanishing, tiny minority; I have met a total of two men in my life who were into that. (Well, two who admitted it, I guess would be more accurate). In terms of sheer numbers, far more heterosexual men are into coprophagia.

I guess it's different when straight people do it.		2011-05-19 01:49:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

I am a buddhist and i have seen past all of that god crap that had rotted my mind, i honestly could care less whether people live or die, the only true peace in the world would be obtained if the human race as a whole was eliminated all together. other than that its all rape, pillage and kill people, not to mention the destrucion of the ecosystems on earth for our own personal gain. there is no true beauty in the world other than the destruction of the destroyers that have been created just to eliminate it amd the life that was created simply to thrive on it. i say let it all happen so eventually the rest of life on earth can live in peace, not being prejudice or anything, just saying earh would be better off without humans.2011-05-19 04:22:00

Author:
Charlemagne
Posts: 513

Um, that's kind of an extreme response and a gross overgeneralization.

You may also want to reacquaint yourself with ahimsa.		2011-05-19 04:40:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Meh, what can i say, im an ecomaniac, but it is true, humans really ruin the cycle in the world, it is nice to live and all, but i dont feel like a very good person if i know half the things i need to survive and entertain myself are obtained through the destruction of the natural flow of the ecosystem, i mean, look at how many people are on earth, its disgusting, and you pair each individual person with another of the opposite sex, they mate and then theres 12 billion **** people in the world (Theoretically of course) and theres like one person that actually makes a difference out of every million people in this world, but ususally in a negative power hungry way or something that results from an average reaction of fear, just look at your ugandan buddy, he has 100,000 times more power than the million people that mr make a difference is trying to make a petition from. and in the end, you really think thats going to stop a genocide? did a petition stop the holocaust? hell no! in the end violence is really the only thing that can stop this kind of thing and once again in the end, violence only leads to more violence, and thats it, people die either way, thats the way humanity works, kill bad people or innocent people die its an inevitable decision. look at darfur, what the hell has anyone done, people are still dying there! its stupid! the little amount of good in the society f the world is replaced by greed and bloodlust and in the end all you end up doing is kill people and harm the world around you, insanity, simple as that.2011-05-19 05:00:00

Author:
Charlemagne
Posts: 513

I'm with you on the whole Mass Human Cull thing... I hate waiting in queues 2011-05-19 07:48:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

I'm with you on the whole Mass Human Cull thing... I hate waiting in queues

Every time I ride the subway (underground for you, I spose) during rush hour is an object lesson in the wisdom of Canada's lawmakers in restricting easy access to handguns.		2011-05-19 11:28:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

The thing is, as has been stated before, is that the Ugandan (?) goverment knows that they are right. And you know that you are right. And there's no such thing as facts, since everything is subjective and relative.

Yelling at them " YOU ARE WRONG " isn't going to help anyone, and I agree with roux- in general

P.S. You can only get as angry as much as you care.		2011-05-19 11:42:00

Author:
jakpe
Posts: 84

That's not true. There are plenty of objective facts. This situation just doesn't happen to contain many of them.2011-05-19 18:52:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Then we'd have to agree on the definition of a "fact". Facts to me, are information, which can never be objective.

If you could give me an example of an objective fact, feel free to do so. =)		2011-05-19 20:50:00

Author:
jakpe
Posts: 84

Air on Earth is composed of approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% trace elements.

That is objective fact. Semantic games aren't really productive.		2011-05-19 22:59:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"
Leviticus 20:13

They probably think they are being "good" christians.

Interestingly enough, there is no passages that condemn Lesbians in the Bible - so God must think Lesbians are cool.
Also, there are no Cats in the Bible.

Jesus had 2 dads and he did fine		2011-05-19 23:09:00

Author:
Unknown User

And if one of my teachers told me that there's actually 70% nitrogen, 29% oxygen and 1% trace elements.

I could never take your statement as a serious fact. It's the same as if someone came up to me and said " You're blonde. " Even though I've known my whole life that I've got brown hair.

But then you could argue that my teacher was simply wrong, so a fact is really determined by what the majority of people know?

Everyone has their own reality.

Hmm, can I really state that? Not really, because that would be contradiction... darn. It would be more like " In my reality, I wish to believe others have their reality's too. "

Sorry, you're probably right, I'm just spiralling down a hole		2011-05-19 23:34:00

Author:
jakpe
Posts: 84

Your teacher was incorrect. Not everyone has their own reality; that's one of the more pernicious bits of stupid hippie nonsense to come out of the 60's. How you interpret reality varies, yes, but it is objective fact that air is approximately 78/21/1. It is objective fact that steel is made largely of iron. It is objective fact that the human body is largely made of water. Welcome back to reality. It's nice here. You may enjoy it.

Listen, if you want to have a productive discussion, please do. If all you want to do is play stupid semantic games and spout something indistinguishable from first-year university stoner philosophy, perhaps you could go elsewhere to do it. Thanks.		2011-05-20 00:07:00

Author:
roux-
Posts: 379

Air on Earth is composed of approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% trace elements.

That is objective fact. Semantic games aren't really productive.

You forgot about the Carbon Dioxide from all those ****ed cars and the little bit of air we breath that are the smoke remains of the people that were incinerated in the Holocaust.		2011-05-20 00:08:00

Author:
Charlemagne
Posts: 513

Jesus had 2 dads and he did fine

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0785/dads.gif		2011-05-20 07:43:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.