The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: onpon4 on December 01, 2010, 03:08:39 am



Title: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on December 01, 2010, 03:08:39 am
I don't know how many of you are aware of this. The U.N. has recently removed sexual orientation as something that it is wrong to execute someone for. As a result of this, countries led by religious extremists have already begun executing homosexual people. LGBT people are rightfully fearing for their lives.

In protest, a collaboration video is being made by a YouTube user named Joniversity. This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO4Sp_zU844) explains everything. I urge anyone with a video camera of some kind to contribute; it isn't much, but it can send a powerful message.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: SweetSassyMolassy on December 01, 2010, 04:50:48 am
Wait, are you saying the UN used to sanction executions that took place just because people were homosexual? And why would countries led by religious extremists give a damn about what the UN thinks anyway?


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Lukipela on December 01, 2010, 06:47:01 am
Er, do you have a link or two for this information?


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on December 01, 2010, 12:32:20 pm
Er, do you have a link or two for this information?

There's exactly 3 (2 of them YT videos) in the description of the video I linked to. I think the first one (the non-video one) is the most important:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/un-general-assembly-votes-to-allow-gays-to-be-executed-without-cause/politics/2010/11/20/15449 (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/un-general-assembly-votes-to-allow-gays-to-be-executed-without-cause/politics/2010/11/20/15449)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U2D3UkHM5U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U2D3UkHM5U)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWTXqmCYp3Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWTXqmCYp3Q)

Wait, are you saying the UN used to sanction executions that took place just because people were homosexual? And why would countries led by religious extremists give a damn about what the UN thinks anyway?

It gives them comfort when the huge, international protector of human rights backs down and says, "OK, it's OK to kill gay people for no reason."


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Alvarin on December 01, 2010, 01:20:02 pm
That is, for the lack of better wording, bullshit.
It only removes the segregation between traditional sexual orientation and the minorities.
The wording used in the article is the one suggesting that being gay is a crime.

Quote
“The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations?
note the "equal" and "non-discrimination". Why should LGBT be singled out?


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Lukipela on December 01, 2010, 03:51:26 pm
There's exactly 3 (2 of them YT videos) in the description of the video I linked to. I think the first one (the non-video one) is the most important:

I'm not in the habit of getting my news from Youtube user Joniversity, so I didn't click the link to his video. If this is an actual issue, and not some weird misunderstanding, I'd expect organisations like amnesty, human right watch and so forth to have picked it up already. Or some large newspaper.

I also have no idea what the New Civil Rights movement is, but it sounds like some internal US thing. I certainly don't recognise it as a movement famous for standing up for human rights around the world. Still ,their article is better than nothing, so thanks.

In short, if you want to have a discussion on topical issues, provide a bit more background and links to something other than Youtube. You'll find a lot more participants that way.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on December 01, 2010, 09:36:39 pm
I'm not in the habit of getting my news from Youtube user Joniversity, so I didn't click the link to his video. If this is an actual issue, and not some weird misunderstanding, I'd expect organisations like amnesty, human right watch and so forth to have picked it up already. Or some large newspaper.

I'm not in that habit either. As a matter of fact, I didn't get the news from him. I first heard of it from another YouTuber, TheTruePooka, in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0n4owQ1z7Y). However, I first fully understood the issue when I saw Joniversity's video (by a link from a video by ItsTheSuperFly). I was also already aware of the link in the description of that video, so I assumed that even if you wouldn't watch it, you would click the link and briefly glance at the video description.

I also have no idea what the New Civil Rights movement is, but it sounds like some internal US thing. I certainly don't recognise it as a movement famous for standing up for human rights around the world. Still ,their article is better than nothing, so thanks.

Try their About page (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/about-the-new-civil-rights-movement). If you read it, you will find that it's not a rights movement organization, but a publisher of information.

In short, if you want to have a discussion on topical issues, provide a bit more background and links to something other than Youtube. You'll find a lot more participants that way.

These were linked to by the blog post:
http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/pressrelease/1257.html (http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/pressrelease/1257.html) (International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission)
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/151133.htm (http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/151133.htm) (United States mission's explanation of the US's vote)

That is, for the lack of better wording, bullshit.
It only removes the segregation between traditional sexual orientation and the minorities.
The wording used in the article is the one suggesting that being gay is a crime.

Quote
“The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations?
note the "equal" and "non-discrimination". Why should LGBT be singled out?

I don't know what issue you're talking about, but I'm talking about the issue where the UN voted to remove sexual orientation from a list of things that it is against execution for. In other words, as far as the UN is concerned, it's OK to execute someone for the sole reason of sexual orientation.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Angelfish on December 02, 2010, 11:39:11 am
That is, for the lack of better wording, bullshit.
It only removes the segregation between traditional sexual orientation and the minorities.
The wording used in the article is the one suggesting that being gay is a crime.

Quote
“The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations?
note the "equal" and "non-discrimination". Why should LGBT be singled out?

I don't know if you know it, but ANY execution, whatever the reason, is in direct defiance of that declaration :). Since the USA, among other countries, is violating that declaration on a daily basis and is still a UN member, I don't really see the reason for the sudden uproar.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on December 02, 2010, 09:07:28 pm
I don't know if you know it, but ANY execution, whatever the reason, is in direct defiance of that declaration :). Since the USA, among other countries, is violating that declaration on a daily basis and is still a UN member, I don't really see the reason for the sudden uproar.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You seem to be responding to the article, and that is talking about the UN vote to allow execution of people based on sexual orientation, not the countries that are actually doing it. It's about the UN following their own declaration, not individual states abiding by it.

But what you say doesn't sound right, anyway; can you please point to where the declaration opposes all kinds of execution? I can see where the equal treatment part comes into play, in article 2:

Quote
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

And the right to life, article 3:

Quote
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

But while you can easily argue that capital punishment is a violation of one's right to life regardless of what alleged crime they commit, many people would disagree. One would only have to cite that throwing criminals in jail or prison, or in fact any court order forcing someone to do something, is also a violation of their liberty. Does that mean we should not punish criminals? I'm sure most of us would agree that we shouldn't just ignore them, and while I feel that jails aren't the best solution, the solution I would prefer (rehabilitation) would still be a violation of the person's right to liberty if they don't want to be rehabilitated.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Angelfish on December 03, 2010, 08:13:30 am
I wasn't talking about my personal interpretation of article 3, but the way it's interpreted by many countries and organisations, although it's not explicitly mentioned.
It's this article that the europeans used to write another declaration that abolished the death penalty altogether. Right now, to gain entrance into the european union the aspiring country needs to drop the death penalty.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on December 03, 2010, 09:23:48 pm
Another video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtYx_7SEuM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtYx_7SEuM)

It says near the beginning essentially the same thing I was going to respond to your last post with, Angelfish. It starts around 1 minute in (1:05, to be more exact). You need to keep watching for a couple minutes.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Angelfish on December 03, 2010, 10:26:21 pm
Another video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtYx_7SEuM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtYx_7SEuM)

It says near the beginning essentially the same thing I was going to respond to your last post with, Angelfish. It starts around 1 minute in (1:05, to be more exact). You need to keep watching for a couple minutes.

I've watched it in its entirety. It's great, I totally approve of its message.

However, I think that denial of LGBT rights becomes a slippery slope, honestly. How can we, as the western world, condemn the limitation of LBGT rights if we, ourselves, treat members of the LGBT community as some kind of 'untermensch'? Right now, it's illegal for many western gays to get married, adopt children, or do service in the army. Ex-Army officials from UN member states even condemn others (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7478738/Gay-Dutch-soldiers-responsible-for-Srebrenica-massacre-says-US-general.html) for allowing gays to serve in their armies.
By electing the people who keep this kind of discrimination going, we ourselves are contributing to the mass denial of LGBT rights.
Therefore, the video should not be called "You're violating human rights" or "The UN is violating Human Rights" or "Certain african and arab countries are violating human rights", but
"I am violating Human Rights."

So I'm suggesting that video's title be changed ;).

Or we might aswell replace it with this one, which tells the same message in a more generic way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iym7xO3-dz4


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on December 05, 2010, 02:32:49 pm
So I'm suggesting that video's title be changed ;).

Or we might aswell replace it with this one, which tells the same message in a more generic way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iym7xO3-dz4

Apparently it's blocked in the US, because YT gave me this message:

Quote
This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment. It is not available in your country.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Angelfish on December 05, 2010, 04:12:27 pm
So I'm suggesting that video's title be changed ;).

Or we might aswell replace it with this one, which tells the same message in a more generic way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iym7xO3-dz4

Apparently it's blocked in the US, because YT gave me this message:

Quote
This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment. It is not available in your country.

oooh fuck youtube, it was the song Man in the Mirror by Michael Jackson.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: meep-eep on December 29, 2010, 09:49:33 pm
FYI: "UN reinstates reference to sexual orientation in resolution on execution" (http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/721).


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Angelfish on December 30, 2010, 09:41:12 pm
FYI: "UN reinstates reference to sexual orientation in resolution on execution" (http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/721).


That's nice to hear.

Also nice to hear is that the USA recently signed a proposition to scrap the Don't ask, Don't tell rule in the US Army.

But what infuriates me is that a month ago same-sex marriage was outlawed in California. WTF, USA?!
http://www.noh8campaign.com/article/about

A country which treats certain minority groups as some kind of untermensch is not worthy of my respect, i'm sorry.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Death 999 on December 31, 2010, 04:24:15 pm
Check the date. That was two years and a month ago. That resolution was recently found to have been procedurally invalid, and it is unlikely to last much longer.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Angelfish on December 31, 2010, 05:47:41 pm
Check the date. That was two years and a month ago. That resolution was recently found to have been procedurally invalid, and it is unlikely to last much longer.

Excusez-moi, I missed the year, but the resolution is still in effect, and the protest is still going.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Lukipela on January 03, 2011, 04:19:51 pm
A country which treats certain minority groups as some kind of untermensch is not worthy of my respect, i'm sorry.

Out of interest (and not trying to score points or anything), how are the Roma treated in your country? Up here in Scandinavia we're currently shitstorming over the French and Italians kicking them out, al while trying to do the same (but in a nice way) ourselves.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Angelfish on January 04, 2011, 08:58:04 am
A country which treats certain minority groups as some kind of untermensch is not worthy of my respect, i'm sorry.

Out of interest (and not trying to score points or anything), how are the Roma treated in your country? Up here in Scandinavia we're currently shitstorming over the French and Italians kicking them out, al while trying to do the same (but in a nice way) ourselves.

I don't really know. Searching indicates that once they were deemed a criminal organisation by some dutch prosecutor, but they are too small of a minority to actually cause problems, I think.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Alvarin on January 04, 2011, 05:21:19 pm
Are Roma the same nation as Gypsy, or these are different people? Wikipedia wasn't very useful in this question...


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Lukipela on January 04, 2011, 07:16:39 pm
The Roma are called gypsies, yeah. They've always been around, but with the addition of Romania to the EU there's a lot more of them that have free mobility. And since they're treated like crap in Romania by the Romanians (not to be confused with the Roma), they move west to beg, and we criminalize them, beat them and send them home.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on January 04, 2011, 10:18:24 pm
The Roma are called gypsies, yeah. They've always been around, but with the addition of Romania to the EU there's a lot more of them that have free mobility. And since they're treated like crap in Romania by the Romanians (not to be confused with the Roma), they move west to beg, and we criminalize them, beat them and send them home.

A Romanian YouTube user, ZOMGitsCriss (http://www.youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss), has said in a video that most people there just don't view gypsies in a particular way (comparing calling someone a "gypsy" to calling someone "Chinese", i.e. they don't care). Are you sure this isn't an over-generalization or stereotype, like how some Americans wrongly view Mexicans?


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Lukipela on January 04, 2011, 10:38:32 pm
You know, I realise Wikipedia may not be as reliable a source as some random schmuck on Youtube that you stumbled across, but hopefully you'll have oversight with me providing an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism#Europe_.28European_Union.29) with loads of sources and written words instead of just the random vocalized opinions opinion of someone with access to youtube.

Or you could check Amnesty (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/europes-roma-community-still-facing-massive-discrimination-20090408). Or the European commission against racism and intolerance (http://www.youth-against-racism.net/files/youth/ECRI_Combating_Racism_Roma_Gypsies.pdf). Or the European Working Conditions Observatory (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2010/02/HU1002049I.htm). Sorry they don't have a video feed that makes them as reputable as a Romanian youtube user, but hopefully they'll give some insight.

Another worthwhile though is that perhaps gays aren't discriminated against at all in the US because I saw this guy on youtube who claims to think of them "like anyone else man, peace!". Clearly Angelfish is mistaken in assuming that there might be anti gay groups in your country..


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on January 05, 2011, 12:44:08 am
You know, I realise Wikipedia may not be as reliable a source as some random schmuck on Youtube that you stumbled across, but hopefully you'll have oversight with me providing an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism#Europe_.28European_Union.29) with loads of sources and written words instead of just the random vocalized opinions opinion of someone with access to youtube.

Or you could check Amnesty (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/europes-roma-community-still-facing-massive-discrimination-20090408). Or the European commission against racism and intolerance (http://=http://www.youth-against-racism.net/files/youth/ECRI_Combating_Racism_Roma_Gypsies.pdf). Or the European Working Conditions Observatory (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2010/02/HU1002049I.htm). Sorry they don't have a video feed that makes them as reputable as a Romanian youtube user, but hopefully they'll give some insight.

Another worthwhile though is that perhaps gays aren't discriminated against at all in the US because I saw this guy on youtube who claims to think of them "like anyone else man, peace!". Clearly Angelfish is mistaken in assuming that there might be anti gay groups in your country..

Gee, did I offend you or something? If so, sorry. I was just pointing out that someone Romanian seemed to disagree with you, I wasn't saying she was more reliable than whatever your sources were. Heck, I had no idea you even had sources. There's really no way to tell (unless you mention explicitly) whether you're speaking from research or personal experience, but I assumed personal experience since you seemed to be talking mostly about an area you live in, and you were also using pretty generic language ("treated like crap"). It seemed quite comparable to how some people over here will talk about what Muslims, gays, Mexicans, etc are like based on stereotypes, as if the stereotypes are fact.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Lukipela on January 05, 2011, 10:56:38 am
A stereotype is generally a negative attribute assigned to a group. Italians are stupid, greeks are lazy, brits smell and have weird teeth, poles are thick and so forth. If someone in your corner of the world goes around saying "Gays are treated like crap", would you immediately assume that it's a stereotype and that gays have it pretty good based on a video by some guy in Arkansas?

And there is a very simple way to tell. If I'm speaking from experience, I will say things like "In my experience", "in my opinion" and "as far as I know". If I don't, there's generally more evidence behind it than just wild hearsay.

And I was being heavily ironic when replying, because as I may have mentioned earlier, I don't think you should be linking youtube users "whatever" to illustrate whatever you are talking about. We all know how to read, and when it comes to big important issues there is generally a wealth of text from different sources that we can peruse, rather than having to sit and listen to someone who got their opinion from god knows where tell us how they think things work. Case in hand, listening to someone from a country where racism is pretty common telling you who they have no racism instead of just googling "racism against roma" (which is what I did to counter your link) and reading texts from a somewhat reliable source.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on January 05, 2011, 12:45:35 pm
A stereotype is generally a negative attribute assigned to a group. Italians are stupid, greeks are lazy, brits smell and have weird teeth, poles are thick and so forth. If someone in your corner of the world goes around saying "Gays are treated like crap", would you immediately assume that it's a stereotype and that gays have it pretty good based on a video by some guy in Arkansas?

Well, the "stereotype" I was talking about is that Romanians treat gypsies like crap, which is exactly what you said. Actually, one of the articles you linked to (the Wikipedia one) actually says something different, that Central and Eastern Europeans don't treat Romanies fairly. The problem is you were pointing to a very specific group and saying that they treat another group like crap. It would not be like saying "gays are treated like crap", but more like "Americans treat gays like crap". It implies, intentionally or not, that only one specific group does it.

And there is a very simple way to tell. If I'm speaking from experience, I will say things like "In my experience", "in my opinion" and "as far as I know". If I don't, there's generally more evidence behind it than just wild hearsay.

You might do that, but I of course don't know you personally, and I can't count the number of times I've heard people (often family members or friends) speaking about word of mouth or personal experience as if they were fact.

And I was being heavily ironic when replying, because as I may have mentioned earlier, I don't think you should be linking youtube users "whatever" to illustrate whatever you are talking about. We all know how to read, and when it comes to big important issues there is generally a wealth of text from different sources that we can peruse, rather than having to sit and listen to someone who got their opinion from god knows where tell us how they think things work. Case in hand, listening to someone from a country where racism is pretty common telling you who they have no racism instead of just googling "racism against roma" (which is what I did to counter your link) and reading texts from a somewhat reliable source.

"Ironic" is the wrong word here; the correct word is "sarcastic". Sarcasm is a device you should be VERY CAREFUL with, because it can get you into fights very easily.

Here's why I mention that: I wasn't trying to "illustrate" something I said. You said, "they're treated like crap in Romania by the Romanians" (emphasis added), and I said that a Romanian on YouTube seems to think that Romanians don't particularly care. The user was who I was talking about, not an attempt at evidence.

To demonstrate, imagine that I (an American) said that Mexicans treat Muslims like crap, but someone else points out that someone with a Facebook account who lives in Mexico has several Muslim friends.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Lukipela on January 05, 2011, 03:56:12 pm
Oh, you were talking of my perception of the Romanian perception of the Roma! Sorry about that, since the rest of us were talking about the actual treatment of Roma in Europe in general I missed that you were more interested in whether it's unfair to say that they are treated badly by Romanians specifically. I guess I should go look for some video saying that the republicans don't think gays are a big deal  if I want an analogy.

So I should have googled "racism against Roma in Romania" instead of just racism against Roma. To satisfy you. Why don't you do that as an excerise instead, I think the result won't be shockingly different from the rest of eastern Europe, or western for that matter. Just try to find something with a wee bit more gravitas than a random dude on youtube.

The reason I singled out Romania wasn't because I think Romanians are any more racist than their neighbouring countries. If you check my post, you'll see that I note that the Roma have always been around, but they haven't been as much of an issue before Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU. Romania has a very large Roma population that is now looking for a better life elsewhere, which is why the situation of Romanian Roma is more relevant, in this discussion about Roma moving into western European countries, than say the treatment of Roma in Serbia. They get a shitty deal everywhere, but the emigrants mostly come from Romania. Which is why it is relevant.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Death 999 on January 05, 2011, 11:19:59 pm
Onpon, sarcasm is a subset of verbal irony, so he was right regardless. And while sarcasm may be something one should be careful with, claims of non-racism are too. Especially when they're clearly wrong. Seriously. Just so you know.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on January 06, 2011, 12:34:30 am
Onpon, sarcasm is a subset of verbal irony, so he was right regardless. And while sarcasm may be something one should be careful with, claims of non-racism are too. Especially when they're clearly wrong. Seriously. Just so you know.

Sarcasm, when not used with friends, can easily cause one of three things: number 1, you make the other person look like an idiot; number 2, you make yourself look like an idiot; and number 3, you get into a fight with someone you don't even disagree with. The first outcome is not a problem for the one using sarcasm, and the second is manageable, but the third should definitely be avoided. I'm sure you can comprehend why that might happen; the person you're being sarcastic to will feel like he's being made a fool of, take offense, and fail to recognize that you are misunderstanding what he meant. This can cause him to act irrationally on his emotions.

I would like to reiterate that I didn't make a claim of non-racism. I claimed that someone else made this claim. Looking back and finding the video in question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBXRCqDvxGU), I actually completely misinterpreted what she said, because she was talking about how other Romanians would try to insult her by calling her a gypsy, and she stated that SHE doesn't care about race. And for that, shame on me, but I still never directly made the claim of no racism, just a claim that someone else made that claim and some speculation that that supposed claim might be true (since Luki seemed to my unknowing brain like he was just making the opposite claim).


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Death 999 on January 06, 2011, 03:36:12 pm
Fourth thing that can happen: Person sees how ridiculously they've been acting, and stop doing whatever it was.

In this case, continuing to rely on anecdote rather than data after being asked not to.

The second paragraph is an excellent demonstration of the validity of Lukipela's objection to linking random YouTube users as evidence. Who cares if someone in Romania isn't racist? Congratulations for them. That's wonderful, really. It has no bearing on the overall discussion.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: onpon4 on January 06, 2011, 08:50:18 pm
Quote
Fourth thing that can happen: Person sees how ridiculously they've been acting, and stop doing whatever it was.

That's a result of #1, if the person is reasonable (why I called #2 "manageable").

The second paragraph is an excellent demonstration of the validity of Lukipela's objection to linking random YouTube users as evidence. Who cares if someone in Romania isn't racist? Congratulations for them. That's wonderful, really. It has no bearing on the overall discussion.

Well, it isn't a random YouTube user, it's one that I'm subscribed to and highly respect. But that doesn't matter; I wasn't linking to her as evidence, I was mentioning what I thought was her position at the time. Since I have no reason to give more weight to a member of a forum than to a member of YouTube, I didn't. When Luki mentioned that his claim was based on research and not on personal experience, I conceded.

But, responding further, if the fact that I misinterpreted someone else is a demonstration for why YouTube videos shouldn't be linked to, it is also a demonstration for why NOTHING should be linked to, whether it be a reliable source or some random blogger. ANYTHING can be misinterpreted, not just YT videos.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Death 999 on January 06, 2011, 09:18:09 pm
Now, now, there's no reason to resort to nihilism or Descarte's demon.


Title: Re: UN no longer against execution of homosexuals
Post by: Alvarin on January 07, 2011, 09:59:04 am
(http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/59e0bb03-cb1b-46f7-bcc8-b1276735e5b0.jpg)