1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ukraine Russian invasion

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Otis1337, 1 Mar 2014.

  1. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    176
    Yeah like those pesky slaves at the end of the 1700's.

    Or these moaning Jews is Nazi Germany.

    Or those pesky queers at the Stonewall bar in 1969.

    Or those rabble rousers of the civil rights movement.

    And don't get me started about the Australian Aborigines or the native tribes of the American plains. How dare these groups of minorities try and dictate to the majority!

    Minorities and have no right to dictate ANYTHING. They have no rights!

    But seriously. I'm more disgusted than ever.
     
  2. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    176
    Are you a member of that community? I'm gay yet I'm not a member of such 'a community'.

    I'm a member of the school PTFA, The National Trust, The Royal Horticultural Society, The British Mountaineering Council, a few climbing gyms and the Mickey Mouse Club (expired). Don't think being gay has ever affected me.

    I think I've always been treated fairly and don't think 'baby steps' is an appropriate description.

    This country isn't perfect, but I would say (from personal experience on all counts) we treat the 'LGBT community' a lot better than we actually treat the whole gender of women.

    EG: I've never heard a bad word about gay issues here on BT, but I do pick up on misogynistic rhetoric from time to time. And if bit-tech is prone to it occasionally, the media & papers are a thousandfold worse.
     
  3. ccxo

    ccxo On top of a hill

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    17
    Well the Russian army doing maneuvers next to the Eastern Ukrainian Border has been ordered back to barracks and their have been high level talks between the Ukrainian goverment and Russia.

    US and EU is giving monetairy aid to the new goverment and talk of the EU paying the 2 Billion debt for Russian gas.

    We could well see Ukraine minus Crimea stay together with possible independence vote for Crimea though will have to see how the situation develops.
     
    Last edited: 5 Mar 2014
  4. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    176
    But do you see that you're attempting to apply your values on others and curtail their freedoms? I'm sure you feel that fits in fine with your personal faith. But it's not very 'nice'.

    I don't see your limits of tolerance to be any more justifiable than that those who justified their 'I've nothing against black people. At all. That is until they try to ride in the white end of the bus' based on their deep held beliefs.

    You feel strongly about it. The racists felt strongly about it. You (probably) justify it based on your faith, and I know for a fact a lot of racists did exactly the same.

    Rights are rights. If they apply to one, they should apply to all.

    I'm going to say it. If you feel that someones rights should be curtailed IN ANY WAY based on their sexuality then you are at best slightly homophobic. If you were curtailing freedoms based on skin colour, or country of birth you would be racist.

    You can justify it to yourself and distance yourself from the homophobe label, but the thing about oppression is those on the receiving end get to determine whether they are being oppressed.

    I wish I could see it as eloquently as this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0
     
  5. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    That all depends on whether they want to restrict the majority's rights, or have their own respected.

    But, you know, we are all warm-hearted tolerant humans until people don't live in the way we think they should. :rolleyes:
     
  6. walle

    walle Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    95
    The marriage issue.

    This is exactly what the homosexuals are doing when they try hijack the institution of marriage, when they try to twist and redefine it, they are imposing themselves onto an institution whose values and beliefs they do not share.

    Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. For the continuity of the human race, men and women are made for one another, spiritually, psychologically and physically, they are complementing each other, they create life together, they constitute the core of the family structure.

    For your information, and I have to repeat it because people seem to forget, I am not a religious person, I am not a "homophobe" either (which, to begin with, doesn't exist anymore than heterophobia) None of those terms really work. It is unfortunate that so many have submitted to these terms.

    That is true.
     
    Last edited: 4 Mar 2014
  7. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    I'm sure they'll let you in if you ask nicely.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    I'm sorry, but you do not hold the definition of marriage in lease. In fact I don't even think that you know its history or origins, or you wouldn't be saying that. It does not prescribe anywhere that it has to be between a man and a woman, and even if it is your definition of marriage it does not have to be mine or other people's.

    The whole debate about whether the Church (or anybody else) should approve gay marriages rests on two premises:

    1. It is up to religious institutions (or anybody else) to approve or disapprove;

    2. Gender is a valid basis on which to judge the legitimacy of marriage.

    Let's start with no. 1. then, shall we?

    Religious institutions undeniably feel a certain ownership of the institution of marriage. Joined in the eyes of the Lord, and all that. But who invented marriage, and what is "marriage" anyway?

    Wikipedia notes that marriage is a relationship between individuals which forms the foundation of a family. It is a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship and offers birth rights to the offspring. Marriage thus can include legal and social as well as cultural/religious elements. In Western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as a contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife), while in other parts of the world polygamy has been the most common form of marriage. Usually this has taken the form of polygyny (a man having several wives) but some societies have practised polyandry (a woman having several husbands).

    One society that traditionally did without marriage entirely was that of the Na of Yunnan province in southern China. Sexual liaisons among the Na took place in the form of "visits" initiated by either men or women, each of whom might have two or three partners each at any given time (and as many as two hundred throughout a lifetime). The nonexistence of fathers in the Na family unit was consistent with their practice of siblings and offspring living with their maternal relatives.

    As for who "invented" marriage, given that there is ample historical proof that it existed well before the major religions appeared on the scene, we can safely say that human society did (even certain animals bond for life --more efficient than wasting time and energy on finding a new partner every mating season-- and they have been around a lot longer than us). So religious institutions cannot really lay claim on marriage; it was a socio-economic institution long before then. But given that religion (not belief!) is often an institution for social (and ecomomical) control, it is of course in its interest to high jack this form of socio-economic contracting.

    That marriage is not necessarily a religious institution is recognised in the fact that people can marry legally (sic) without involvement of the Church, and even can live together as married in the eyes of society (on small Channel Islands, where priests might just visit once a year, it was common practice for people to live together before being officially married). So in all reasonablility, although they can choose not to perform the religious ritual of marriage, it is not up to religious institutions to judge the legitimacy of a marriage. That is outside their domain altogether. They have no authority.

    Now about point 2:

    Marriages traditionally do not have to be between man and wife. Some parts of India follow a custom in which the groom is required to marry with an auspicious plant called Tulsi before a second marriage to overcome inauspicious predictions about the health of the husband. However, the relationship is not consummated and thus does not affect their ability to remarry later (this is not a norm found across the entire Indian sub-continent). Other unusual variations include marriage between a living human and a ghost (Taiwan), a living human and a recently-deceased human with whom they were emotionally involved (France), and between a human being and God (Catholic and Orthodox monasticism. In the case of monks, does that mean God is gay?).

    There are religious records in Europe from around the first Millennium that casually describe, and approve of homosexual marriages. Around that time marriage was seen as the union of two loving souls, a monogamous partnership and the joining of resources. The whole issue of procreation did not come until some centuries later.

    Given these practices, we can ask ourselves: if a man can marry a ghost, deity or even a plant, why not another man (and a woman another woman)? Traditionally marriage was a socio-economic contract in which offspring (heirs and blood lines) were important, but that is much less of an issue now. Some societies function quite happily without a traditional institution of "marriage" whatsoever. So really gender is a rather trivial issue on which to judge the legitimacy of a marriage.
     
    Pliqu3011 likes this.
  9. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    63
    You talk as if marriage was a force of nature and not a human construct. Or at least was some irrefutably held law of human spirituality and religion.
     
  10. Pliqu3011

    Pliqu3011 all flowers in time bend towards the sun

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    2,736
    Likes Received:
    257
  11. walle

    walle Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    95
    Marriage, albeit a human construct, is as an institution between a man and a woman, a logical and natural step, and for reasons mentioned. It makes sense. You are free to take the religious aspect out of the equation if you want to no problem.

    It's the definition we have shared and held for a very long time, an intrinsic part of the fabric of our culture, that said, you and others are of course free to make any definitions you want, most people seem to do that with various definitions and words these days so it's not as if you will stick out.
     
    Last edited: 4 Mar 2014
  12. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    I suppose the question is, what are you arguing prevents us from changing that?
     
  13. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151
    Could we possibly split this thread. Certainly Putin espoused some pretty neanderthal view on homosexuality but this is not why he's invaded the Crimea. Though from looking at Pravda, they're probably claimed the Maidan protestors are that way too somewhere.
     
  14. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    I agree, and I've created a new thread here. I took some of the pertinent comments and quoted them in the new thread to give it a bit of context.
     
  15. Porkins' Wingman

    Porkins' Wingman Can't touch this

    Joined:
    23 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    2,897
    Likes Received:
    129
    I always wonder about the need to marry.

    Why do two people need to marry? What are the motives of the proposer and the accepter? Something tells me the very first incidence of marriage in human history was not because the two people just wanted to be together forevs, and that it wasn't entirely voluntary for one or both halves of the union. Put two people on an island alone - are they going to get married?

    Notions of 'love' and romance have just been weaved in as a marketing strategy to promote social stability. At some point in human history someone invented the concept, and it most likely wasn't because they were one half of a couple that shared mutual love, respect and rights. More likely it was someone who wanted to shape their society in a manner that favoured their own interests, exerting some sort of control.

    But we'll never know for sure.

    Want to stay together forevs? Nothing's stopping you.

    Edit: oh, I'm a bit late. Still, I love a tangent...
     
  16. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151
    A lot of the problem is that Putin sees NATO and 'The West' as a natural enemy as a continuation of the cold war. There was no reason for this to be the case. When the USSR collapsed I think most people thought we could have friendly relations going forward and didn't think that Russia's interests were in any way opposed to ours.

    I tell if Putin sees this differently because he is agry about the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Russian Empire, or he is nostalgic for the old day, or he just thinks that his position domestically is best served by encoraging xenophobic nationalism. I hust think it didn't need to be like this and he bears a lot of the responsibility.
     
  17. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    63
    So yesterday Putin basically said I'll do what I want essentially as they don't recognise old treaties as they were signed with previous administration; was this a revolution or just the ousting of Yunakovych(can't spell, sorry). Although US are now getting v involved. In fact I believe John Kerry has been on the ground to assure Ukrainian people of US support.

    The EU response is somewhat tricky. Russia and Germany are very close due import export of I assume gas. The French have contracts to build war ships for russia... So they will hardly want to halt those. And meanwhile everyone has pretty much confirmed the only sanction state wide that could be enforced is on their gas exports via Ukraine. This would hurt both sides equally according to "experts" leaving only the withdrawal of visas for Russian big wigs and Kremlin officials... Essentially trying to combat only the specific people rather than hurt all of Russia.

    Doesn't look good to be honest. On the radio they said what was striking is Putin's motives remain unclear as it doesn't look like they actually have a longterm plan.

    So assuming Putin's demand to establish a new government balanced from both sides of the argument is upheld, it could end up being a strange PR excerise for the Kremlin and their human rights agenda.
     
  18. faugusztin

    faugusztin I *am* the guy with two left hands

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    270
  19. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    7,059
    Likes Received:
    970
    Crimea will hold a referendum on 16th march on leaving Ukraine and joining Russia, Ukraine government says doing so would be unconstitutional.
     
  20. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    63
    Probably the only thing that can be done is for Crimea to leave. Otherwise surely it is going to get messy if both sides refuse to acknowledge each other. Russia not acknowledging the new government and the new govt. Not acknowledging Crimea's wishes.
     

Share This Page