If you're going to post a verse from some religious text or something similar, please ignore this thread.

I pose a question poorly researched by me, but I'd like to hear opinions from here eitherways.

I give you a situation like saudi arabia, where women do not have suffrage (iirc). This is considered by most in the west as a blatant human rights abuse, morally egregious. At the point where it becomes perceived by the west, or whatever culture, as a basics right abuse, do they have the right to interfere?

Bush touted moral superiority in his adventures in iraq, it hasn't increased his popularity there. My history is hazy, but I remember a prussian king (frederic maybe)trying to give his subjects basic rights, and they loathed him for that. Napoleon went about spreading his code and was demonized everywhere regardless. The same could arguably be said of alexander and his conquests as well.

I might be wrong, but I don't remember the mongols (genghis and his exploits in particular) adding anything of worth culturally, in fact they adopted more from the cultures than they gave. They happened to be extremely brutal and competent at warfare though. Despite their extreme brutality they seem to be respected by those oppressed. Is this your view as well? Why do you think it was so? (Killed everyone who could write otherwise?)

Random, ignore if u don't get d question: Is morality tied to profit, are we being prudent, pragmatic or hyocrites?

wiegraf: If you're going to post a verse from some religious text or something similar, please ignore this thread.

I pose a question poorly researched by me, but I'd like to hear opinions from here eitherways.

I give you a situation like saudi arabia, where women do not have suffrage (iirc). This is considered by most in the west as a blatant human rights abuse, morally egregious. At the point where it becomes perceived by the west, or whatever culture, as a basics right abuse, do they have the right to interfere?

Bush touted moral superiority in his adventures in iraq, it hasn't increased his popularity there. My history is hazy, but I remember a prussian king (frederic maybe)trying to give his subjects basic rights, and they loathed him for that. Napoleon went about spreading his code and was demonized everywhere regardless. The same could arguably be said of alexander and his conquests as well.

I might be wrong, but I don't remember the mongols (genghis and his exploits in particular) adding anything of worth culturally, in fact they adopted more from the cultures than they gave. They happened to be extremely brutal and competent at warfare though. Despite their extreme brutality they seem to be respected by those oppressed. Is this your view as well? Why do you think it was so? (Killed everyone who could write otherwise?)

Random, ignore if u don't get d question: Is morality tied to profit, are we being prudent, pragmatic or hyocrites?

Interesting. This is the sort of topic that I like to debate about but since I can't do without referring to the bible, I'll just watch from the sidelines and perhaps occasionally stir the water with an annoying question or two when the thread starts rolling.

Mr_Anony:
Interesting. This is the sort of topic that I like to debate about but since I can't do without referring to the bible, I'll just watch from the sidelines and perhaps occasionally stir the water with an annoying question or two when the thread starts rolling.

you can comment without reference to the bible infact you rarely ever make reference to the bible(in specific quotations).

^^^
What he says @mr anony . It's the reason I still debate you anyways. You at least try to approach issues mathematically, in a manner of speak. Or attempt to translate to secular speak.

I'm not asking religious not to get involved, just keep scriptures and common fallacies (as far as the rest of the world that does not subscribe to your faith) is concerned. Or something like that, you get the drift.

Double post

wiegraf: If you're going to post a verse from some religious text or something similar, please ignore this thread.

I pose a question poorly researched by me, but I'd like to hear opinions from here eitherways.

I give you a situation like saudi arabia, where women do not have suffrage (iirc). This is considered by most in the west as a blatant human rights abuse, morally egregious. At the point where it becomes perceived by the west, or whatever culture, as a basics right abuse, do they have the right to interfere?

they dont have the right to interfere especially as it does not in any way affect them.the west has a knack for poking their noses where its needed not.america has made itself the police of the world perhaps because of its economic superiority.when the british invaded afghanistan,they believed the afghans would be thrilled by the freedom they(brits)brought along.instead,the hitherto warring tribes united to kill all the british soldiers save one.people have their cultures and the arabs are proud people who view females as properties.this didnt start with islam,it was the culture long before islam.

e:
Bush touted moral superiority in his adventures in iraq, it hasn't increased his popularity there. My history is hazy, but I remember a prussian king (frederic maybe)trying to give his subjects basic rights, and they loathed him for that. Napoleon went about spreading his code and was demonized everywhere regardless. The same could arguably be said of alexander and his conquests as well.

frederic was a callous sonofabitch but also one of the greatest was strategists of all time.he definitely wasnt liberal.quite a number of kings tried the liberal approach with their subjects notably the grand-nephew of napoleon who became emperor.he dressed casually,took strolls on the streets of paris and mingled with locals.he was friends with the rothschilds and allowed them to sit and even wear a hat in his presence.at first the french were thrilled with his simplicity,with time the novelty wore off and the people wanted a king who behaved like a king.he was eventually deposed and lived out the remainder of his life in exile.
napoleon bonaparte was loved,loathed and respected.the austrians hated him but his people loved him.napoleon was a great general but not a brutal leader.the more reason why he could reclaim his throne without a single shot been fired and rule for 100days before his quest for more glory led him to waterloo

e:

I might be wrong, but I don't remember the mongols (genghis and his exploits in particular) adding anything of worth culturally, in fact they adopted more from the cultures than they gave. They happened to be extremely brutal and competent at warfare though. Despite their extreme brutality they seem to be respected by those oppressed. Is this your view as well? Why do you think it was so? (Killed everyone who could write otherwise?)

the fact that you mentioned the mongols is because their legacy remains till date.without the mongols,there wouldnt be china.

Probably cultural sensitivity

The attitude here mirrors how atheists (with assistance of misguided "intellectuals" etc) have abused the concept of "separation of church and state" and turned it on its head almost to the complete opposite of its originally intended purpose and meaning --- to almost now mean that anything "religious" is not to be tolerated.

It is also an unconscious demonstration of the double-standards and duplicity that the atheists are rightly accused of.

Christians start threads and say 'for Christians only' yet atheists go there to defecate on it ---- they claim "oh this is a public forum not your church".

Now we have an atheist saying people should not use scriptures ----- on a thread in the Religion Section!

Why not go and post the thread in the Politics section ------ and then come here to invite the concerned desired participants to go and join the thread?

All good.

@Enigma has a point.

okeyxyz: @Enigma has a point.

Not really, as there's no atheist only section. I want to deal with this in the context of religion particularly, I don't want silly my religion said this arguments. The rest of the post is a rant. He should take it up with the perceived offenders.

Really, this all amounts to arrogance on the parts of those who preach human rights as if it's something "divine" or bestowed upon us by some supreme entity. Don't get me wrong, I believe in human rights too but I will not assume that I have the right impose one set of values on any people and declare "this is a fight for freedom and justice". If a person has not asked to be freed from oppression, then what are you liberating him from? How come it's easy for us to ignore the fact that half the population of saudi arabia are women? If the women decide to go out enmasse to demand their rights what are the men/authorities gonna do? take out guns and shoot their wives, daughters and sisters? Has it occured to us that these women being orthodox moslems that most of them do infact believe in the fundamentals of islam?

For most parts, the real reason western cultures make a deliberate push for "human rights" into other cultures is simply for the econmomic benefits they(the west) would derive from it, no more, no less. Not that it's a bad thing though(nor do i oppose it). Just calling a spade when i see one.

wiegraf: If you're going to post a verse from some religious text or something similar, please ignore this thread.

In the context of this forum, the above is nonsense; in fact, I would go as far as saying it is idiotic.

wiegraf: . . .

I'm not asking religious not to get involved, just keep scriptures and common fallacies (as far as the rest of the world that does not subscribe to your faith) is concerned. Or something like that, you get the drift.

The above is even more idiotic. Especially from atheists who do not keep their nonsense that others do not subscribe to away from threads that are no business of theirs.

Delafruita:
they dont have the right to interfere especially as it does not in any way affect them.the west has a knack for poking their noses where its needed not.america has made itself the police of the world perhaps because of its economic superiority.when the british invaded afghanistan,they believed the afghans would be thrilled by the freedom they(brits)brought along.instead,the hitherto warring tribes united to kill all the british soldiers save one.people have their cultures and the arabs are proud people who view females as properties.this didnt start with islam,it was the culture long before islam.


frederic was a callous sonofabitch but also one of the greatest was strategists of all time.he definitely wasnt liberal.quite a number of kings tried the liberal approach with their subjects notably the grand-nephew of napoleon who became emperor.he dressed casually,took strolls on the streets of paris and mingled with locals.he was friends with the rothschilds and allowed them to sit and even wear a hat in his presence.at first the french were thrilled with his simplicity,with time the novelty wore off and the people wanted a king who behaved like a king.he was eventually deposed and lived out the remainder of his life in exile.
napoleon bonaparte was loved,loathed and respected.the austrians hated him but his people loved him.napoleon was a great general but not a brutal leader.the more reason why he could reclaim his throne without a single shot been fired and rule for 100days before his quest for more glory led him to waterloo



the fact that you mentioned the mongols is because their legacy remains till date.without the mongols,there wouldnt be china.

If we can, let's abstain from criticizing one culture or the other. That may be difficult of course, but let's just try to focus on global trends. I'm not making a case for a liberal or left leaning cause either. It just seems that every so often someone brings about a 'just' cause and uses that ( and various other reasons maybe) as a reason to try and justify subjugation. Usually the cause boils down to cultural, religious, moral issues. In essence, they simply don't believe they can do business with the neighbour, and go about forcing their moral code on the neighbour. Is this ever acceptable?

So basically frederic failed on various fronts because he was too callous? I got that impression as well. Genghis was a lot more callous though. So what's the diffrence between them, success? (Edit: with regards to china I would say the mongols eventually became chinese, not the other way round. China as is usual was plagued with internecine battles, leaving them vurnrable, but eventually mongol culture was assimilated. My history knowledge may be poor though)

Napoleon was loved in france, this was france after the revolution, they were the usa of the day (in a manner). He wasn't so popular in the rest of europe though. He did have supporters in other european countries, but has generally been demonized. This despite his code being considered morrally superior to the feudal systems he tried to replace (from the pov of west ie, random, napoleon wasn't short for his age, yet the napolean complex is named after him for instance, perhaps it has to do with what some view as needless wars?).

Thanks for the responses btw.

okeyxyz: Really, this all amounts to arrogance on the parts of those who preach human rights as if it's something "divine" or bestowed upon us by some supreme entity. Don't get me wrong, I believe in human rights too but I will not assume that I have the right impose one set of values on any people and declare "this is a fight for freedom and justice". If a person has not asked to be freed from oppression, then what are you liberating him from? How come it's easy for us to ignore the fact that half the population of saudi arabia are women? If the women decide to go out enmasse to demand their rights what are the men/authorities gonna do? take out guns and shoot their wives, daughters and sisters? Has it occured to us that these women being orthodox moslems that most of them do infact believe in the fundamentals of islam?

For most parts, the real reason western cultures make a deliberate push for "human rights" into other cultures is simply for the econmomic benefits they(the west) would derive from it, no more, no less. Not that it's a bad thing though(nor do i oppose it). Just calling a spade when i see one.

So in your opinion, if you're going to be brutally honest, would you say there's never a situation where morality alone justifies subjugation?

Say slavery, for instance?

Edit: is there a situation where people in the culture deemed inferior just aren't educated enough to know they are being 'oppressed'? Thanks

Kay 17: Probably cultural sensitivity

It seems impossible to ignore cultural sensitivity in these issues.

Basically I'd like to know if there possibly could be some sort of universal moral code.

okeyxyz: Really, this all amounts to arrogance on the parts of those who preach human rights as if it's something "divine" or bestowed upon us by some supreme entity. Don't get me wrong, I believe in human rights too but I will not assume that I have the right impose one set of values on any people and declare "this is a fight for freedom and justice". If a person has not asked to be freed from oppression, then what are you liberating him from? How come it's easy for us to ignore the fact that half the population of saudi arabia are women? If the women decide to go out enmasse to demand their rights what are the men/authorities gonna do? take out guns and shoot their wives, daughters and sisters? Has it occured to us that these women being orthodox moslems that most of them do infact believe in the fundamentals of islam?

For most parts, the real reason western cultures make a deliberate push for "human rights" into other cultures is simply for the econmomic benefits they(the west) would derive from it, no more, no less. Not that it's a bad thing though(nor do i oppose it). Just calling a spade when i see one.

the reason i love this post is because i will always refer to it whenever you post your usual gibberish.
going by your analogy,people should be allowed to practise their belief in the context of their culture without any interference unless they specifically ask to be liberated.lets assume i am a worshipper of the goddess astarte,infact lets assume every gay person is a worshipper of the goddess astarte,practise of the religion requires all types of sexuality including homosexuality.why then should our basic right to practise our religion freely and even intermarry within ourselves be denied us simply because some goons arent comfortable with what we do despite the fact it has no direct effect on their lives?

wiegraf:

If we can, let's abstain from criticizing one culture or the other. That may be difficult of course, but let's just try to focus on global trends. I'm not making a case for a liberal or left leaning cause either. It just seems that every so often someone brings about a 'just' cause and uses that ( and various other reasons maybe) as a reason to try and justify subjugation. Usually the cause boils down to cultural, religious, moral issues. In essence, they simply don't believe they can do business with the neighbour, and go about forcing their moral code on the neighbour. Is this ever acceptable?

hitler didnt act in isolation,infact he was cheered on by his countrymen.chairman Mao was by all means a buffoon who succeeded in causing the death of millions by encouraging them to farm for steel(how stupid does that even sound) but the chinese revere him till date.kim jon il died recently and there was an outpour of emotions from his countrymen.i half expected one of the senior generals to seize power but that didnt happen because they indeed believed that kim jong il was a god and he was watching.belief systems differ from place to place and it would be wrong to attempt to infringe on the rights of people to believe in what they believe in.
however,this is the modern age and almost every nation,irrespective of their various belief systems,are members of the UN and are signatories to various treaties and charters.when they violate those charters,it becomes the duty of the UN to bring them into line.

e:
So basically frederic failed on various fronts because he was too callous? I got that impression as well. Genghis was a lot more callous though. So what's the diffrence between them, success?

on the contrary,frederic didnt fail.he succeeded in solidifying prussia by winning wars and signing treaties.

e: Napoleon was loved in france, this was france after the revolution, they were the usa of the day (in a manner). He wasn't so popular in the rest of europe though. He did have supporters in other european countries, but has generally been demonized. This despite his code being considered morrally superior to the feudal systems he tried to replace (from the pov of west ie, random, napoleon wasn't short for his age, yet the napolean complex is named after him for instance, perhaps it has to do with what some view as needless wars?).

first,napoleon was very short for his age which is one of the reasons he wore high shoes.he was also a local corsican peasant which is why he always wanted tallyrand around him despite his hatred for the man.as for the wars been needless,thats an error.his first war was against the austrians and he roundly defeated them.they in turn sought revenge as did the prussians but unknown to them napoleon always had well paid spies who let him know of the plans of the enemies.which is why he always seemed to be on the offensive.this is not to say he didnt wage wars,he did and his ultimate goal was to create a large empire with him as emperor.he knew he couldnt achieve this without getting rid of the papacy and thus began his quest.in the context of the times,no war was needless.it was all about gaining territories

Delafruita:
hitler didnt act in isolation,infact he was cheered on by his countrymen.chairman Mao was by all means a buffoon who succeeded in causing the death of millions by encouraging them to farm for steel(how stupid does that even sound) but the chinese revere him till date.kim jon il died recently and there was an outpour of emotions from his countrymen.i half expected one of the senior generals to seize power but that didnt happen because they indeed believed that kim jong il was a god and he was watching.belief systems differ from place to place and it would be wrong to attempt to infringe on the rights of people to believe in what they believe in.
however,this is the modern age and almost every nation,irrespective of their various belief systems,are members of the UN and are signatories to various treaties and charters.when they violate those charters,it becomes the duty of the UN to bring them into line.


on the contrary,frederic didnt fail.he succeeded in solidifying prussia by winning wars and signing treaties.


first,napoleon was very short for his age which is one of the reasons he wore high shoes.he was also a local corsican peasant which is why he always wanted tallyrand around him despite his hatred for the man.as for the wars been needless,thats an error.his first war was against the austrians and he roundly defeated them.they in turn sought revenge as did the prussians but unknown to them napoleon always had well paid spies who let him know of the plans of the enemies.which is why he always seemed to be on the offensive.this is not to say he didnt wage wars,he did and his ultimate goal was to create a large empire with him as emperor.he knew he couldnt achieve this without getting rid of the papacy and thus began his quest.in the context of the times,no war was needless.it was all about gaining territories

As for the first part, lol. You really don't believe in our father kim jun I'll (or whatever), heathen? From the way you describe it (and many others do as well), it sounds like the vast majority of north korea is deluded. Is it possible the vast majority of those people have been brain washed and really don't know better? What if they become dangerous to others, not just themselves. They might decide their dear father should be father to all of us.

Yes he (frederic) did in many ways, he didn't win many popularity contests though during his times. That's what we are looking at, how people react to being force fed another culture, is it ever justifiable?

Napoleon is all debatable, I disagree but ultimately its irrelevant. He was corsican of course, I'm not even sure if his french wasn't without an accent and whatnot. The complex though is a misnomer en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex . Look up references of course if wiki isn't good enough for you. Evolution, we've grown taller.

So the UN puts a wrench on things? Forces us to follow its moral code? (Edit: I hadn't considered this)

wiegraf:

As for the first part, lol. You really don't believe in our father kim jun I'll (or whatever), heathen? From the way it describe it (and many others do as well), it sounds like the vast majority of north korea is deluded. Is it possible the vast majority of those people have been brain washed and really don't know better? What if they become dangerous to others, not just themselves. They might decide their dear father should be father to all of us.

of course the entire north korean people are deluded.however,they perceive others as been deluded.just like a christian would view a jew nodding persistently at the wailing wall as been a heathen and the jew would view a muslim as been misguided.an aztec would see the 3 of them as been doomed to hell and the atheist would be like:hell?never heard of it.a brit believes its the ultimate sign of a gentleman to drink tea while an american thinks tea is for retards and prefers his coffee.a latino on the other hand wants nothing other that his beloved tequila.yorubas believe its the ultimate sign of respect to look down when been chastised by an elder while others see this as an admission of guilt.cultures differ as much as languages differ.the context of right and wrong therefore differs from place to place.the indians preserve their elphants,the europeans hunt them for ivory.i rather watch a game of tennis than sit around for soccer and my friends see me as weird.when i tune in to monday night football,my fiance frowns but for me,nothing is worth doing on monday night than watching aaron rodgers coordinate plays.i am simply elucidating the diversity of human nature and how it affects society and how its viewed by society

e:
Yes he (frederic) did in many ways, he didn't win many popularity contests though during his times. That's what we are looking at, how people react to being force fed another culture, is it ever justifiable?

e: Napoleon is all debatable, I disagree but ultimately its irrelevant. He was corsican of course, I'm not even sure if his french wasn't without an accent and whatnot. The complex though is a misnomer en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex . Look up references of course if wiki isn't good enough for you. Evolution, we've grown taller.

So the un puts a wrench on things? Forces us to follow its moral code?

perhaps we have grown taller

@dela , sometimes people write lol without actually loling, but I actually was loling. Just know that my way is unambiguously superior, always. Never question me else your arrogance will show. And how could you prefer tennis to football? Heathen

I don't think so. Interfering aggressively(invasions,wars) always leaves resentment long after the events are over.
The best way is to choose some citizens and expose them to the lifestyle(human rights, liberties,democracy,technology,science,luxury, and other benefit of a progressive society) hitherto alien to them. Then, an abrupt stop. Maybe denying of work permit or outright deportation. This people WILL not/CANNOT return fully to their regressive culture. So, a little compromise, here and there, they are on their way to freedom. It will take long but it may work better. Afterall, they are changing themselves. That's how the spartans 'lost' the war.

But the economic benefits of invading and exploiting a country is too tempting to overlook. What better guise to invade than for democràcy?

Finally, it is immoral to ignore others as they suffer simply because they suffer the misfortune of being born in a backward society. Rwanda genocide. Bosnia genocide. Jewish holocaust. Would you if you had the power(using 'interference') stop it in its early years? I know you said human rights but this can also be regarded as one. What I'm trying to say is, 'interfering' for economic benefits(usually denied by unreasonable target country in a global society), to stop egregious crimes/human right abuses in some countries is necessary tho not desirable. This may contradict my first answer but hope you get exactly what I meant. Its somehow difficult to articulate precisely the complex morality I'm following.

Avicenna: I don't think so. Interfering aggressively(invasions,wars) always leaves resentment long after the events are over.
The best way is to choose some citizens and expose them to the lifestyle(human rights, liberties,democracy,technology,science,luxury, and other benefit of a progressive society) hitherto alien to them. Then, an abrupt stop. Maybe denying of work permit or outright deportation. This people WILL not/CANNOT return fully to their regressive culture. So, a little compromise, here and there, they are on their way to freedom. It will take long but it may work better. Afterall, they are changing themselves. That's how the spartans 'lost' the war.

But the economic benefits of invading and exploiting a country is too tempting to overlook. What better guise to invade than for democràcy?

Finally, it is immoral to ignore others as they suffer simply because they suffer the misfortune of being born in a backward society. Rwanda genocide. Bosnia genocide. Jewish holocaust. Would you if you had the power(using 'interference') stop it in its early years? I know you said human rights but this can also be regarded as one. What I'm trying to say is, 'interfering' for economic benefits(usually denied by unreasonable target country in a global society), to stop egregious crimes/human right abuses in some countries is necessary tho not desirable. This may contradict my first answer but hope you get exactly what I meant. Its somehow difficult to articulate precisely the complex morality I'm following.

Its a reasonable position, which I would personally subscribe to actually. So I suppose should a culture be deemed dangerous then armed conflicts may be necessary? This does seem rather arbitrary though.

Also, does that mean there's an objectively morally superior code out there that we should, or are obligated to, follow?

Random:
For instance bush and iraq in his axis of evil. I was no expert on iraq, but even I knew of the sunni/shia sh1tstorm that was being held in check by saddam. It was also patently obvious he wouldn't have nuclear weapons (chemical maybe, nuclear, no). In essence, some would have argued that saddam was a necessary evil (*ducks*), even by western moral standards as the alternatives were arguably worse. And there are other ways they could have gone about disposing saddam anyways (and they were trying, and reasonably successful too). The US seems less interested, or overtly aggressive with korea, a viable military threat. The cost of their last campaigns in that region may be reason enough discourage involvement. So maybe there were other reasons for bush shenanigans in iraq. After his tenure blair said something to the tune of he felt he was mandated by god to involve himself in iraq (after, because british are very separate church and state). I'm not sure about bush but he's probably said similar, during his tenure even.

Delafruita:
the reason i love this post is because i will always refer to it whenever you post your usual gibberish.
going by your analogy,people should be allowed to practise their belief in the context of their culture without any interference unless they specifically ask to be liberated.lets assume i am a worshipper of the goddess astarte,infact lets assume every gay person is a worshipper of the goddess astarte,practise of the religion requires all types of sexuality including homosexuality.why then should our basic right to practise our religion freely and even intermarry within ourselves be denied us simply because some goons arent comfortable with what we do despite the fact it has no direct effect on their lives?

Okay, so we are talking about gay-culture here again from the other thread?
Well, If gay people had a world of their own where they make their gay laws, then they can define their laws in whatever, however manner they wish. But this is not the case, we have a system now that was formed based on heterosexual values, nobody has said homose.xuality should be criminalized and i'll never support such, But for you to insist that all traditional heterosexuals must dismantle their beloved institutions and must redefine them to accommodate your g.ay desires is just simply wicked of you. Why do you want to usurp their institutions just because it doesn't pander to your wishes? Have they not made provisions for you, recorgnized by the law for your rights to exist and associate? But no, that is not enough, you insist you must asimilate theirs in totality, they must not continue in their ways, it's either your way or never?

wiegraf: @dela , sometimes people write lol without actually loling, but I actually was loling. Just know that my way is unambiguously superior, always. Never question me else your arrogance will show. And how could you prefer tennis to football? Heathen

now am actually lmao.i dont prefer tennis to football,god(the white bearded one who love to kill little kids)forbid.i prefer tennis to soccer.but i do watch soccer and i love arsenal footbal club(another reason friends think am a retard).we "heathens" will converge on flushing meadows by next week and nothing will be better than seeing my beloved andy murray(another reason am a retard) finally get his grand slam.
lest i forget,my way is superior to your way no matter how superior to me way your way is.

okeyxyz:
Okay, so we are talking about gay-culture here again from the other thread?
Well, If gay people had a world of their own where they make their gay laws, then they can define their laws in whatever, however manner they wish. But this is not the case, we have a system now that was formed based on heterosexual values, nobody has said homose.xuality should be criminalized and i'll never support such, But for you to insist that all traditional heterosexuals must dismantle their beloved institutions and must redefine them to accommodate your g.ay desires is just simply wicked of you. Why do you want to usurp their institutions just because it doesn't pander to your wishes? Have they not made provisions for you, recorgnized by the law for your rights to exist and associate? But no, that is not enough, you insist you must asimilate theirs in totality, they must not continue in their ways, it's either your way or never?

where do you get the idea that the system is for heterosexuals?the system exists for human beings irrespective of their sexuality.what do you mean by usurping beliefs?you are mixingbup religion and law.the reason people are against homosexuality is because they claim it goes against their religious beliefs.its not because it harms them in anyway.law shouldnt be made on the basis of religion.it should be made by taking into account the various religious beliefs and disbeliefs.gone are the days the church reigned supreme in the affairs of men.

Delafruita:
now am actually lmao.i dont prefer tennis to football,god(the white bearded one who love to kill little kids)forbid.i prefer tennis to soccer.but i do watch soccer and i love arsenal footbal club(another reason friends think am a retard).we "heathens" will converge on flushing meadows by next week and nothing will be better than seeing my beloved andy murray(another reason am a retard) finally get his grand slam.
lest i forget,my way is superior to your way no matter how superior to me way your way is.

Where to begin... Your ways are so egregious from now on I will terrify followers of my religion with tales featuring you as our antichrist...

wiegraf:

Where to begin... Your ways are so egregious from now on I will terrify followers of my religion with tales featuring you as our antichrist...

so long as those tales dont describe a dude with 7heads and a dreadful face.while we're at it,your "antichrist" should have a face like clooney,lips like jolie and a voice like diesel.anything short of that is blasphemy
your "christ" had better have a better means of transportation than a chariot from the sky and it would do him a lot of good to purchase some missile shields from the russians or else..........

Community defines morality. Human rights is appreciated more because we are becoming more conscious of a global community. We don't recognize conquests anymore, neither is absolute state sovereignty.

So we have a semblance of universal morality, thus invading Bosnia, Rwanda, Liberia; trying war criminals solely on morality just shows that the world is conscious of a new moral order.

Saudi Arabia itself is being bombarded regularly about the unjust system they live in, most women believe they are entitled to more basic rights, homosexuals are raising their voices, liberal advocates are discussing in the open etc. An armed revolution will be supported by the world, just as seen in the Arab Spring.

I believe the time just has to be right.

okeyxyz:
Okay, so we are talking about gay-culture here again from the other thread?
Well, If gay people had a world of their own where they make their gay laws, then they can define their laws in whatever, however manner they wish. But this is not the case, we have a system now that was formed based on heterosexual values, nobody has said homose.xuality should be criminalized and i'll never support such, But for you to insist that all traditional heterosexuals must dismantle their beloved institutions and must redefine them to accommodate your g.ay desires is just simply wicked of you. Why do you want to usurp their institutions just because it doesn't pander to your wishes? Have they not made provisions for you, recorgnized by the law for your rights to exist and associate? But no, that is not enough, you insist you must asimilate theirs in totality, they must not continue in their ways, it's either your way or never?

Sexuality or Sexual Identity is JUST a difference.

@kay , armed conflicts always leave a bitter taste, but I agree, sometimes it may be necessary.

So ultimately we are now crafting a universal moral code? What is this based on? The environment more or else, yes? So there is no objectively best way to go about crafting a moral code, is there?

Please butcher the word transcendental anywhere you see it, thank you.

@dela, you didn't even tempt me with anything in order to do as you wish. That's standard antichrist procedure. You'll need to work harder else lucifer, saddam, some members of NL et al will win all the plaudits

Hmm, I can see you guys have been having fun. There is something you all seem to be neglecting though.
When you talk about human rights, who or what is responsible for bestowing us with these rights and what gives such an entity the right to define for us what our human rights are?

Kay 17:

Sexuality or Sexual Identity is JUST a difference.

Sorry., i don't get your point?