Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smeeprocket]

I guess we could fit this into a hypothetical I used earlier.

The winter is cold, you are short on wood. You can burn ten people to make sure everyone is warm and toasty. You won't die of cold if you don't but you will be uncomfortable. Yes/no?

[Comrade P.]

I guess we could fit this into a hypothetical I used earlier.

The winter is cold, you are short on wood. You can burn ten people to make sure everyone is warm and toasty. You won't die of cold if you don't but you will be uncomfortable. Yes/no?

When you have more than ten people, you can get warm by sticking together.

You also threaten people's very lives here, it is different.

[Knit tie]

I think what we have here is a situation of "the law forbids both peasants and kings to sleep under bridges": Russians think that allowing gays to freely express their sexuality amounts to preferential treatment, even though heterosexual people have no problems with shoving blatant sexualisation into everything from advertisements to movies, while Westerners think that this is merely equal treatment. I support the latter, personally, because I believe that to be fair and just, you either have to have problems with women's asses being printed everywhere or not have problems with men's asses being printed in the same places. P., I suppose you will agree with me that if we let heterosexual people talk about their sex lives freely, it would be only fair that we let homosexual people do the same. Or is your argument that the desire of the majority is that the gays do not express their sexuality due to it being unpleasant to the said majority?

[smeeprocket]

I guess we could fit this into a hypothetical I used earlier.

The winter is cold, you are short on wood. You can burn ten people to make sure everyone is warm and toasty. You won't die of cold if you don't but you will be uncomfortable. Yes/no?

When you have more than ten people, you can get warm by sticking together. Think about it, collectivist.

You also threaten people's very lives here, it is different.

It's a hypothetical, suspend your belief, no one gets to snuggle together for warmth (or dig into the snow)

Look do you want this toasty gay person fire to happen or not?

The point is, (and I am not really a collectivist, people just keep calling me that,) it will not hurt you or your rights for gay people to have equal representation.

If there is a voiceless and politically weak group in your society, one that exists peacefully and causes harm to no one by virtue of their existence, don't they deserve the rights everyone else enjoys? Isn't that worth fighting for?

I think what we have here is a situation of "the law forbids both peasants and kings to sleep under bridges": Russians think that allowing gays to freely express their sexuality amounts to preferential treatment, even though heterosexual people have no problems with shoving blatant sexualisation into everything from advertisements to movies, while Westerners think that this is merely equal treatment. I support the latter, personally, because I believe that to be fair and just, you either have to have problems with women's asses printed everywhere or not have problems with men's asses being printed in the same places. P., I suppose you will agree with me that if we let heterosexual people talk about their sex lives freely, it would be only fair that we let homosexual people do the same. Or is your argument that the desires of the majority is that the gays do not express their sexuality due to it being unpleasant to the said majority?

I'm not sure what the desires of the majority are. I see what the politicians have done, but I don't live in Russia to know how people feel about it.

[Sergarr]

I guess we could fit this into a hypothetical I used earlier.

The winter is cold, you are short on wood. You can burn ten people to make sure everyone is warm and toasty. You won't die of cold if you don't but you will be uncomfortable. Yes/no?

When you have more than ten people, you can get warm by sticking together. Think about it, collectivist.

You also threaten people's very lives here, it is different.

It's a hypothetical, suspend your belief, no one gets to snuggle together for warmth (or dig into the snow)

Look do you want this toasty gay person fire to happen or not?

The point is, (and I am not really a collectivist, people just keep calling me that,) it will not hurt you or your rights for gay people to have equal representation.

If there is a voiceless and politically weak group in your society, one that exists peacefully and causes harm to no one by virtue of their existence, don't they deserve the rights everyone else enjoys? Isn't that worth fighting for?

I think what we have here is a situation of "the law forbids both peasants and kings to sleep under bridges": Russians think that allowing gays to freely express their sexuality amounts to preferential treatment, even though heterosexual people have no problems with shoving blatant sexualisation into everything from advertisements to movies, while Westerners think that this is merely equal treatment. I support the latter, personally, because I believe that to be fair and just, you either have to have problems with women's asses printed everywhere or not have problems with men's asses being printed in the same places. P., I suppose you will agree with me that if we let heterosexual people talk about their sex lives freely, it would be only fair that we let homosexual people do the same. Or is your argument that the desires of the majority is that the gays do not express their sexuality due to it being unpleasant to the said majority?

I'm not sure what the desires of the majority are. I see what the politicians have done, but I don't live in Russia to know how people feel about it.

Nobody enjoys the right of expressing their sexuality in public in Russia.

Letting these people do this would be a breach of equality and thus, not allowed.

[smeeprocket]

I guess we could fit this into a hypothetical I used earlier.

The winter is cold, you are short on wood. You can burn ten people to make sure everyone is warm and toasty. You won't die of cold if you don't but you will be uncomfortable. Yes/no?

When you have more than ten people, you can get warm by sticking together. Think about it, collectivist.

You also threaten people's very lives here, it is different.

It's a hypothetical, suspend your belief, no one gets to snuggle together for warmth (or dig into the snow)

Look do you want this toasty gay person fire to happen or not?

The point is, (and I am not really a collectivist, people just keep calling me that,) it will not hurt you or your rights for gay people to have equal representation.

If there is a voiceless and politically weak group in your society, one that exists peacefully and causes harm to no one by virtue of their existence, don't they deserve the rights everyone else enjoys? Isn't that worth fighting for?

I think what we have here is a situation of "the law forbids both peasants and kings to sleep under bridges": Russians think that allowing gays to freely express their sexuality amounts to preferential treatment, even though heterosexual people have no problems with shoving blatant sexualisation into everything from advertisements to movies, while Westerners think that this is merely equal treatment. I support the latter, personally, because I believe that to be fair and just, you either have to have problems with women's asses printed everywhere or not have problems with men's asses being printed in the same places. P., I suppose you will agree with me that if we let heterosexual people talk about their sex lives freely, it would be only fair that we let homosexual people do the same. Or is your argument that the desires of the majority is that the gays do not express their sexuality due to it being unpleasant to the said majority?

I'm not sure what the desires of the majority are. I see what the politicians have done, but I don't live in Russia to know how people feel about it.

Nobody enjoys the right of expressing their sexuality in public in Russia.

Letting these people do this would be a breach of equality and thus, not allowed.

"these" people.

Can you kiss your loved one, or hold hands? No one is talking about fucking in public. Basic shows of affection, or hell, just not being stereotypically masculine or feminine based on your gender/

[Knit tie]

I guess we could fit this into a hypothetical I used earlier.

The winter is cold, you are short on wood. You can burn ten people to make sure everyone is warm and toasty. You won't die of cold if you don't but you will be uncomfortable. Yes/no?

When you have more than ten people, you can get warm by sticking together. Think about it, collectivist.

You also threaten people's very lives here, it is different.

It's a hypothetical, suspend your belief, no one gets to snuggle together for warmth (or dig into the snow)

Look do you want this toasty gay person fire to happen or not?

The point is, (and I am not really a collectivist, people just keep calling me that,) it will not hurt you or your rights for gay people to have equal representation.

If there is a voiceless and politically weak group in your society, one that exists peacefully and causes harm to no one by virtue of their existence, don't they deserve the rights everyone else enjoys? Isn't that worth fighting for?

I think what we have here is a situation of "the law forbids both peasants and kings to sleep under bridges": Russians think that allowing gays to freely express their sexuality amounts to preferential treatment, even though heterosexual people have no problems with shoving blatant sexualisation into everything from advertisements to movies, while Westerners think that this is merely equal treatment. I support the latter, personally, because I believe that to be fair and just, you either have to have problems with women's asses printed everywhere or not have problems with men's asses being printed in the same places. P., I suppose you will agree with me that if we let heterosexual people talk about their sex lives freely, it would be only fair that we let homosexual people do the same. Or is your argument that the desires of the majority is that the gays do not express their sexuality due to it being unpleasant to the said majority?

I'm not sure what the desires of the majority are. I see what the politicians have done, but I don't live in Russia to know how people feel about it.

Nobody enjoys the right of expressing their sexuality in public in Russia.

Letting these people do this would be a breach of equality and thus, not allowed.

So all the naked women everywhere and couples kissing in parks and on movie screens do not amount to an expression of heterosexuality?

[Sergarr]

I guess we could fit this into a hypothetical I used earlier.

The winter is cold, you are short on wood. You can burn ten people to make sure everyone is warm and toasty. You won't die of cold if you don't but you will be uncomfortable. Yes/no?

When you have more than ten people, you can get warm by sticking together. Think about it, collectivist.

You also threaten people's very lives here, it is different.

It's a hypothetical, suspend your belief, no one gets to snuggle together for warmth (or dig into the snow)

Look do you want this toasty gay person fire to happen or not?

The point is, (and I am not really a collectivist, people just keep calling me that,) it will not hurt you or your rights for gay people to have equal representation.

If there is a voiceless and politically weak group in your society, one that exists peacefully and causes harm to no one by virtue of their existence, don't they deserve the rights everyone else enjoys? Isn't that worth fighting for?

I think what we have here is a situation of "the law forbids both peasants and kings to sleep under bridges": Russians think that allowing gays to freely express their sexuality amounts to preferential treatment, even though heterosexual people have no problems with shoving blatant sexualisation into everything from advertisements to movies, while Westerners think that this is merely equal treatment. I support the latter, personally, because I believe that to be fair and just, you either have to have problems with women's asses printed everywhere or not have problems with men's asses being printed in the same places. P., I suppose you will agree with me that if we let heterosexual people talk about their sex lives freely, it would be only fair that we let homosexual people do the same. Or is your argument that the desires of the majority is that the gays do not express their sexuality due to it being unpleasant to the said majority?

I'm not sure what the desires of the majority are. I see what the politicians have done, but I don't live in Russia to know how people feel about it.

Nobody enjoys the right of expressing their sexuality in public in Russia.

Letting these people do this would be a breach of equality and thus, not allowed.

So all the naked women everywhere and couples kissing in parks and on movie screens do not amount to an expression of heterosexuality?

If it was in my force, I would ban kissing in public.

[Comrade P.]

@Knit: I'm against putting any blatant sexualisation in public, in first place. Not strictly against, but I'd be way more comfortable without it all around me. As for the latter, it isn't just about gays.

@Smeep: What I mean is your hypothetical comparison was flawed.
And I'm not going with "that's not gonna hurt you". If it ain't gonna hurt me, ain't gonna a hurt them as well.

[smeeprocket]

@Knit: I'm against putting any blatant sexualisation in public, in first place. Not strictly against, but I'd be way more comfortable without it all around me. As for the latter, it isn't just about gays.

@Smeep: What I mean is your hypothetical comparison was flawed.
And I'm not going with "that's not gonna hurt you". If it ain't gonna hurt me, ain't gonna a hurt them as well.

But you are not having the thing that is hurting to them happening to you. Even if you don't like the things you have the privilege of doing, it remains a right that you possess. You are trying to whitewash the issue. Either society accepts it from all sexualities or none. And even then, being open about being gay shouldn't be a dangerous thing. Which it currently is as far as I can tell. Is being heterosexual dangerous in Russia?

[Sergarr]

being russian is already dangerous in russia m8

[Knit tie]

I have no qualms with Sergarr now, he's got a consistent system of values there, and discussing the merits of different SOVs is the domain of men much smarter than I.
 
But P, why are you not strictly against boys kissing girls in public, but are strictly against boys kissing boys in public?

Personally, I am against all the capitalism-powered sex everywhere as well, by the way.

[Comrade P.]

I have no qualms with Sergarr now, he's got a consistent system of values there, and discussing the merits of different SOVs is the domain of men much smarter than I.
 
But P, why are you not strictly against boys kissing girls in public, but are strictly against boys kissing boys in public.

If you put it that way... I guess I'm strictly against. People should really keep their private life private.

Smeep, I guess here is your answer. No forms of sexuality at all rather than just one. Unfortunately, it far from actual state of things as well.

[smeeprocket]

being russian is already dangerous in russia m8

and it's more dangerous if you are gay, and you aren't allowed to talk about it, and have no legal recourse, and if you are trans or mentally ill you also can't drive now. "I have problems too" is not a good justification for anything.

[Knit tie]

I have no qualms with Sergarr now, he's got a consistent system of values there, and discussing the merits of different SOVs is the domain of men much smarter than I.
 
But P, why are you not strictly against boys kissing girls in public, but are strictly against boys kissing boys in public.

If you put it that way... I guess I'm strictly against. People should really keep their private life private.

Strictly against both? No problems with that in my book.