Jenifa from Latvia: We hate you gay!

Jenifa_:

of course not.
what kind of majority rights are you talking about?



The term Minority Rights embodies two separate concepts: first, normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or sexual minorities, and second, collective rights accorded to minority groups. The term may also apply simply to individual rights of anyone who is not part of a majority decision.

Civil rights movements often seek to ensure that individual rights are not denied on the basis of membership in a minority group.

My problem with some of these civil rights movements is that they often forget that same individual rights apply to the majority as well, and when there is a conflict they should stop crying marginalization or prejudice.

For example while the minorities are entitled to their beliefs, morals, faith etc, it shouldn't come at the expense of majority discarding/changing theirs. Like in this discussion, while gays have the right to live their life as they want, it shouldn't be at the expense of the majority heterosexuals accepting what they consider wrong as right. Like why will they want to force me and my likes to believe that their definition of marriage is superior to ours?

OAM4J:

Though I am not a political scientist, I understand clearly that there are check and balances in democracy, but ultimately the majority in a community will eventually have their way, even if it means changing their constitution.


Minority rights will not come at the expense of majority rights.

What about Dominant minorities?

IMO, it depends on how you define majority, the views and beliefs of a numerical minority can dominate policy. It may not be fair, but shyyte happens.

It's fairly common in history and politics, i.e the white minority of South Africa dominated the country and their world view was the accepted standard for centuries(still is for the most part) even though they constitute a tiny numerical fraction of the population.

Same for the dominance of European world view and ideas across our world. So, it depends on how you define majority, at least from a socio-political standpoint.

"lurking" mode

Kilode?!:

What about Dominant minorities?

IMO, it depends on how you define majority, the views and beliefs of a numerical minority can dominate policy. It may not be fair, but shyyte happens.

It's fairly common in history and politics, i.e the white minority of South Africa dominated the country and their world view was the accepted standard for centuries(still is for the most part) even though they constitute a tiny numerical fraction of the population.

Same for the dominance of European world view and ideas across our world. So, it depends on how you define majority, at least from a socio-political standpoint.

"lurking" mode  

Dominant Minority shouldn't exist in true democracy IMO. Every member of a community/group should have equal say/vote on every matter. While minority have their say, majority wins. Except democracy is no longer the rule of numerical majority.

OAM4J:

My problem with some of these civil rights movements is that they often forget that same individual rights apply to the majority as well, and when there is a conflict they should stop crying marginalization or prejudice.

For example while the minorities are entitled to their beliefs, morals, faith etc, it shouldn't come at the expense of majority discarding/changing theirs. Like in this discussion, while gays have the right to live their life as they want, it shouldn't be at the expense of the majority heterosexuals accepting what they consider wrong as right. Like why will they want to force me and my likes to believe that their definition of marriage is superior to ours?

so minorities should continue to be oppressed because you feel you are entitled to the rights to oppress them?
that's not the definition of individual rights. did you take a political science or government course at all?

OAM4J:

Dominant Minority shouldn't exist in true democracy IMO. Every member of a community/group should have equal say/vote on every matter. While minority have their say, majority wins. Except democracy is no longer the rule of numerical majority.

so if nazi germany decides to exterminate all jews tomorrow. that should be allowed based on the idea of majority rules?

eku_bear:

Your position is unreasonable. When did a majority become what determines right or wrong?

And what do you need a video for? The studies references in that article aren't suffucient? Do you actually need some animal gay p0rn to be convinced? 


(Sorry for taking forever to respond, had some school stuff I was preparing for)

It is unreasonable for majority to determine what is right or wrong? 

So who else should decide it?

That is a shocking argument.

So who is to decide that my wankstar example is wrong for having is glory in public?

If majority cannot determine what is wrong how do we create laws?

As per video, you want me to believe something because someone else said so? I should not ask for solid evidence on something that should be easy to get? We live in a world where I have seen fantastic and amazing filming of animal life in impossible places but yet no one (in an industry that is HEAVILY pro-gay) has been able to film gay animals from the millions of specie of animals on Earth and you expect me to accept? Especially when the main authors of some of the fictional gay animal reports are known to be deviants themselves (maybe the others are closet gays).

I am sorry, but "my" University of Bristol taught me better.

Jenifa_:


so minorities should continue to be oppressed because you feel you are entitled to the rights to oppress them?
that's not the definition of individual rights. did you take a political science or government course at all?

Depends on what you term as "oppressed" innit? or should the majority be "oppressed" instead?

Jenifa_:

so if nazi germany decides to exterminate all jews tomorrow. that should be allowed based on the idea of majority rules?

Quit this your Nazi-Jew thingy already. There is no law anywhere that will support that, and I told you already on this thread that it is the reason organisations like UN exists.

And stop equating a law disallowing an act because majority are against it to killing/exterminating a group/ an ethnic cause they are in minority. Doesn't follow each other.

Jenifa_:


so minorities should continue to be oppressed because you feel you are entitled to the rights to oppress them?
that's not the definition of individual rights. did you take a political science or government course at all?

Deviancy is not an individual right and not comparable to fundamental rights.

Sagamite:

Deviancy is not an individual right and not comparable to fundamental rights.

no comment for you.

OAM4J:

Dominant Minority shouldn't exist in true democracy IMO. Every member of a community/group should have equal say/vote on every matter. While minority have their say, majority wins. Except democracy is no longer the rule of numerical majority.

I understand you in principle, but unfortunately, numerical majority don't always prevail in a democracy. And it doesn't always equate to fairness.

We often think of democracy as a purely fair system but It's not perfect. Early thought leaders of America's current system grappled with the same issue: How do we practice democracy without promoting tyranny of the majority or the minority? Political scientists are still grappling with it.

Allowing the wishes of the largest Numerical group don't always mean we are fair or democratic. It's not always about numbers, else, right, wrong and justice will be at the perpetual mercy of political mob rule.(unfortunately it sometimes is)

Plurality is another concept that comes to mind in explaining this, where the side with the largest number(not necessarily overall, but in comparison to all other splintered groups) wins the vote even if their wishes represents say just 40% of the population.

If you can shed more light on how to best protect the rights of minorities in a democracy without leaving them at the mercy of the majority. I will be glad to read your thoughts. I'm really interested in what others think about this.


Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for or against any side in the gay debate, except to condemn murder.

OAM4J:

Depends on what you term as "oppressed" innit? or should the majority be "oppressed" instead?

Quit this your Nazi-Jew thingy already. There is no law anywhere that will support that, and I told you already on this thread that it is the reason organisations like UN exists.

And stop equating a law disallowing an act because majority are against it to killing/exterminating a group/ an ethnic cause they are in minority. Doesn't follow each other.

so if the ugangan government decides to propose a law to jail and execute all gays and the gays rise up in protest against this proposed law, the majority are being oppressed? please explain further what you mean.

then you don't know the content of german laws in 1930s and 40s.
check this out: http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/voices/info/decrees/decrees.html

And I agree with you. The UN definitely lashed out against the Ugandan govt for proposing that anti-gay bill. but obviously the UN can only do so much. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33921&Cr=homosexual&Cr1

if you check out the link about german laws in the 1930s, you will see that the holocaust didn't just happen. it started with simple decrees and laws like these. ex banning jews from trade, banning Kosher practices, banning them from practicing their religion, forcing them to wear stars/mark of identification, confiscating their property (especially access to telephone, mail and other forms of communication), banning jewish children from school, secluding them to a ghetto, creating a department of racial hygiene etc all culminating in mass deportations and finally the holocaust. so it was a gradual systematic process.

the law doesn't just disallow an act. it disallows a way of life. just as the jewish way of life was disallowed. etc keep in mind Jew is NOT an ethnicity or race (if you must know that even race is a social construct). it's just a culture/way of life!! ie some people define being jewish as having at least a grandparent who practiced the religion,  some count recent converts as jewish. there are many definitions.

fstranger1:

Jenifa, from Latvia: We hate you gay! Welcome to Nairaland.  I enjoy sparring with you.  You are a worthy adversary.  All in good fun.  Ciao!

Fixed.

^ lol. i've just started reporting to mods/ ignoring that one.

Look at you

Screw you!

I have started reporting you too

Once I get banned, one or two posts after. you 'd be banned as well


Oloshi!

Kilode?!:




Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for or against any side in the gay debate, except to condemn murder.

you only condemn murder.
jail terms, harassment, excessive discrimination, systematic oppression etc are ok by you?

Kilode?!:

I understand you in principle, but unfortunately, numerical majority don't always prevail in a democracy. And it doesn't always equate to fairness.

We often think of democracy as a purely fair system but It's not perfect. Early thought leaders of America's current system grappled with the same issue: How do we practice democracy without promoting tyranny of the majority or the minority? Political scientists are still grappling with it.

Allowing the wishes of the largest Numerical group don't always mean we are fair or democratic. It's not always about numbers, else, right, wrong and justice will be at the perpetual mercy of political mob rule.(unfortunately it sometimes is)

Plurality is another concept that comes to mind in explaining this, where the side with the largest number(not necessarily overall, but in comparison to all other splintered groups) wins the vote even if their wishes represents say just 40% of the population.

If you can shed more light on how to best protect the rights of minorities in a democracy without leaving them at the mercy of the majority. I will be glad to read your thoughts. I'm really interested in what others think about this.


Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for or against any side in the gay debate, except to condemn murder.

I wish I have a golden answer to your question, but I dont. I agree with your thought, it is the same reason I didn't argue against eku_bear statement on majority determining rights and wrong.

I know it is very possible for majority to take decisions that is 'unfair' and 'wrong' to the minority. For example, a Muslims dominant community can force sharia on the minority in that community.

I might say it is 'wrong' and 'unfair' but my calling it 'unfair' and 'wrong' might be because am not a Muslim. So the question is: Who defines Rights and Wrongs?

I see some senses in sagamite signature about 'Geniocracy - Rule of the Genius' that is, if we have a well tested parameter to measure intelligence, then we should allow only the intelligent people to vote and take decisions. (of course it will be easier said than done.)

But until Political experts come up with a better alternative, democracy still remains the best form of government for now. And where the interests and beliefs of minority is not acceptable/tolerated in a particular society, the minority can disassociate themselves from the majority. For example, If I dont want to practice Sharia, then I can relocate out of Zamfara. In the case of this discussion, gays can relocate from Africa to the West, after all many of them are getting asylum already on that excuse.

OAM4J

sagamite' signature:I believe in Geniocracy. Morons should not have a right to vote!

I some some sense in sagamite signature about 'Geniocracy - Rule of the Genius' that is, if we have a well tested parameter to measure intelligence, then we should allow only the intelligent people to vote and take decisions. (of course it will be easier said than done.)

what an insight
you know, now i'm starting to understand the way you,sagamite and tensor think. lol

OAM4J:

I wish I have a golden answer to your question, but I dont. I agree with your thought, it is the same reason I didn't argue against eku_bear statement

I see some senses in sagamite signature about 'Geniocracy - Rule of the Genius' that is, if we have a well tested parameter to measure intelligence, then we should allow only the intelligent people to vote and take decisions. (of course it will be easier said than done.)

You see some sense in Sagmite's POV?

What else about Sagamite do you like? his di-ck? what about his arse?

Sagamite:

It is unreasonable for majority to determine what is right or wrong? 

So who else should decide it?

That is a shocking argument.

So who is to decide that my wankstar example is wrong for having is glory in public?

If majority cannot determine what is wrong how do we create laws?

As per video, you want me to believe something because someone else said so? I should not ask for solid evidence on something that should be easy to get? We live in a world where I have seen fantastic and amazing filming of animal life in impossible places but yet no one (in an industry that is HEAVILY pro-gay) has been able to film gay animals from the millions of specie of animals on Earth and you expect me to accept? Especially when the main authors of some of the fictional gay animal reports are known to be deviants themselves (maybe the others are closet gays).

I am sorry, but "my" University of Bristol taught me better.

In short, yes. Rightness/wrongness is not equivalent to what the majority thinks.

Regarding video, peer-reviewed scientific research is not enough? Consider this journal publication, for example:

http://www.seduquere.com/sgcArchivos/servicios/serviciodeinformacioneducativa/novedad/conductamismosexo.pdf

And the article describing it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

Anyway, peer-reviewed research is good enough to convince me, for the most part.

fstranger1:

You see some sense in Sagmite's POV?

What else about Sagamite do you like? his di-ck? what about his arse?

gay, you are already thinking of a stiff just because someone said they agree with an opinion?

Downlow brother, AIDS is real.

Jenifa_:

so if the ugangan government decides to propose a law to jail and execute all gays and the gays rise up in protest against this proposed law, the majority are being oppressed? please explain further what you mean.

No, if the majority of Ugandans are being forced to accept homosexuality as normal way of life against their belief/morals and such acceptance is forced down the throats of their children under the guise of 'minority rights', then the majority is being 'oppressed'.

then you don't know the content of german laws in 1930s and 40s.
check this out: http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/voices/info/decrees/decrees.html

And I agree with you. The UN definitely lashed out against the Ugandan govt for proposing that anti-gay bill. but obviously the UN can only do so much. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33921&Cr=homosexual&Cr1

if you check out the link about german laws in the 1930s, you will see that the holocaust didn't just happen. it started with simple decrees and laws like these. ex banning jews from trade, banning Kosher practices, banning them from practicing their religion, forcing them to wear stars/mark of identification, confiscating their property (especially access to telephone, mail and other forms of communication), banning jewish children from school, secluding them to a ghetto, creating a department of racial hygiene etc all culminating in mass deportations and finally the holocaust. so it was a gradual systematic process.

the law doesn't just disallow an act. it disallows a way of life. just as the jewish way of life was disallowed. etc keep in mind Jew is NOT an ethnicity or race (if you must know that even race is a social construct). it's just a culture/way of life!! ie some people define being jewish as having at least a grandparent who practiced the religion,  some count recent converts as jewish. there are many definitions.

I said quit this your Nazi-Jew thingy. Many sane human condemned the whole thing then and now. I still maintain it is unrelated to the act of homosexuality.

fstranger1:

You see some sense in Sagmite's POV?

What else about Sagamite do you like? his di-ck? what about his arse?

hahahahaha lol

cos you dont like him, no one should share his POV? C'mon quit it, it's childish.

Jenifa is 100% correct with her extreme example.

No sane country equates what the majority wants with the correct course of action. Certainly that is not the way the US works. Otherwise there would still be Jim Crow laws. . .

Sometimes a majority of people want what is evil, wrong, unjustifiable or silly.

Sagamite:

gay, you are already thinking of a stiff just because someone said they agree with an opinion?  

Downlow brother, AIDS is real.  

Very altruistic of you, coming to the defense of your brother.

It seems you are the macho guy is this relationship

You must love the anal fisting he gives you, innit?

Bro, do your thang mehn.

Jenifa_:

OAM4J
what an insight
you know, now i'm starting to understand the way you,sagamite and tensor think. lol

Am glad you starting to get it. Finally.

Long and short of it is that, We (the majority of Africans) will NEVER accept homosexuality as a decent way of life, NEVER, gay rights or not, tell that to all your folks.

OAM4J:


I said quit this your Nazi-Jew thingy. Many sane human condemned the whole thing then and now. I still maintain it is unrelated to the act of homosexuality.

most germans did not. Hitler was very popular in his country. he rose to power mainly because of public support!! remember also that germany lost the world war and were looking for scapegoats. minority population are always targets for stuff like that.
even the US was "neutral" for a while and many who condemned it didn't do anything until the worst had already happened.

OAM4J:

Am glad you starting to get it. Finally.

Long and short of it is that, We (the majority of Africans) will NEVER accept homosexuality as a decent way of life, NEVER, gay rights or not, tell that to all your folks.

She is white, she doesnt know what she is talking about!

Foolish girl

eku_bear:

In short, yes. Rightness/wrongness is not equivalent to what the majority thinks.

It is not equivalent to what majority thinks, but if it is not a fundamental human/natural right and it is offensive to majority, then it is a candidate for banning by majority based on what they think.

eku_bear:

Regarding video, peer-reviewed scientific research is not enough? Consider this journal publication, for example:

If something should be easy to get, then peer review is not satisfactory for me.

If you talk about advent Global warming or Evolution, peer review is great.

If you talk about Flamingoes migrating to Lagos, peer review means shyt to me.

eku_bear:

http://www.seduquere.com/sgcArchivos/servicios/serviciodeinformacioneducativa/novedad/conductamismosexo.pdf

And the article describing it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

Anyway, peer-reviewed research is good enough to convince me, for the most part.

I opened the first one and closed it under 3 seconds.

I opened the second one, and the same thing happened.

The titles said it all for me.

What I asked for was for you to show me "Gay" or "Homosexual" animals, apart from it not being a video, the documents' title did not say "Gay" or "Homosexual" animals, it said "Same-sex behaviours" seen in animals.

I think it is safe to conclude now that you are not capable to show me Gay animals. I am confident the reason for this, in this day and age of advanced technological filming equipments and ease of access to information through various revolutionary media, it is because they do not exist.

My confidence is even more fired up because I know the gay-camp knows showing all or majority of animals have gay population is the HOLY GRAIL in beating all arguments and this camp is very influential on the media especially in Europe and yet the likes of advanced widelife documentary makers like BBC can not obtain such videos.

No one can show me irrefutable and conclusive videos of Gay animals.

fstranger1:

Very altruistic of you, coming to the defense of your brother.

It seems you are the macho guy is this relationship

You must love the anal fisting he gives you, innit?

Bro, do your thang mehn.

It is midnight in the states, no wonder your mind went to stiffs! 

If we say OBJ is controlling PDP, the only thing you would think of is stiffs. Your concentration is gone. 

Okay, go ahead and cruise. Don't worry, we will still be here for you to come back and defend your rights from us "homophobics".

Jenifa_:

most germans did not. Hitler was very popular in his country. he rose to power mainly because of public support!! remember also that germany lost the world war and were looking for scapegoats. minority population are always targets for stuff like that.
even the US was "neutral" for a while and many who condemned it didn't do anything until the worst had already happened.

OK since you wanna continue with this your Nazi-Jew thingy.

How does this story affect/correlate to homosexuality? Are you afraid that the heterosexuals will gather all you gays together and kill you, same way Hitler killed the Jews?

Dont worry, that is not our intension, the plan is to get all homos to leave Africa, so that they will not start 'oppressing' us under the guise of gay rights. Simple!

OAM4J:

Am glad you starting to get it. Finally.

Long and short of it is that, We (the majority of Africans) will NEVER accept homosexuality as a decent way of life, NEVER, gay rights or not, tell that to all your folks.

I think you misinterpret my post. I mean that I understand your way of thinking. ex. I got these points from your comment:
1. you assume yourself to be a genius
2. you think only geniuses should have a right to vote. hence you are superior (i.e make better decisions)
3. basically, all men are not created equal/ some are inherently superior to others

your argument to me then stem not from a belief in majority rule but from your ideas of superiority.

let me ask you two questions: do you agree with these ideas below and why or why not?
  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

not that it doesn't say "majority men." it says "ALL men"
and the same declaration has been used to fight for suffrage and rights for women, blacks and other minority or vulnerable population in the US
It was the basis for the French revolution as well.

so it's not about accepting homosexuality as a decent way of life. or accepting morons as your equal (in terms of skill etc) or even accepting islam or hinduism as a decent religion. or accepting albinos or jews as decent human beings.or accepting women as having equal level of intelligence.
it's more about accepting them as human beings with the same alienable rights all people have in common.