Politics... World events

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Pidesco said:

Uh, that didn't answer my question and that's not what secular means.

Maybe you can share your definition of secular and what you mean by the question in the interest of clarity?

English isnt everyone's first language and if you want to have a debate on a forum that has members from all over the world I find that helps

[Pidesco]

22 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Maybe you can share your definition of secular and what you mean by the question in the interest of clarity?

English isnt everyone's first language and if you want to have a debate on a forum that has members from all over the world I find that helps

Secular:

"not connected with religious or spiritual matters."

"of or relating to the worldly or temporal"

"of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred"

"not pertaining to or connected with religion"

"concerned with nonreligious subjects."

"not having any connection with religion"

[Darkpriest]

1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

Hey, he ate McDonalds. Trump was a man of the people.

Well, he definately was at a waist size of an average American

[Darkpriest]

18 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

Secular:

"not connected with religious or spiritual matters."

"of or relating to the worldly or temporal"

"of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred"

"not pertaining to or connected with religion"

"concerned with nonreligious subjects."

"not having any connection with religion"

That I can agree with then, so secular would not mean atheistic or ideologically driven? 

What you describe I'd fit more under experimental science

[BruceVC]

48 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

That I can agree with then, so secular would not mean atheistic or ideologically driven? 

What you describe I'd fit more under experimental science

Secular means none religious, so a secular Constitution means the Constitution does not base its laws and rules on a particular religion. Like most of our Constitutions 

Pidesco can confirm what the original question meant but I think he is asking what would be the reason a person doesnt support the rights of LGBT, is it based on a religious view or a non-religious view. And he wants to know what would be the actual reason you or anyone else dont support LGBT rights

Its  a good question if that is what he is asking because there are different ways a person can respond to why anyone doesn't support LGBT rights in a modern Democracy where human rights are part of the Constitution, LGBT rights   like womens rights and religious freedom are all part of human rights. So it becomes inconsistent if you say " I believe in womens rights and support a non-racist society " but you  dont support LGBT rights

 

52 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Well, he definately was at a waist size of an average American

Obesity is  also an issue in SA, its one of our many health problems we deal with as a society

Edited January 20, 2021 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

 

There are numerous people in this country who have suggested putting an every man in the White House. There are many others who flirted with the idea of a celebrity president. I seriously hope both factions have gotten that crap out of their system. Let’s not do this again huh?

Reagan was a celebrity president, though. Sure, he took a longer route to the White House than Trump, but I just don't think anyone has gotten anything out of their system.

[Gorth]

35 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

That I can agree with then, so secular would not mean atheistic or ideologically driven?

Exactly. Atheism is not believing in the existence of one or more gods (Not to be confused with agnostics, which accept the possibility that such might exist, but they don't worship them). The opposite of secular countries would be something like The Vatican, Saudi Arabia or Iran, where the clergy runs the country (theocracies) and legislate according to their religious scriptures.

 

Edit: I'm fairly sure The Vatican no longer burns people at the stake when accused of witchcraft or claims Earth isn't the center of the universe (RIP Giordano Bruno)

[Darkpriest]

4 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Exactly. Atheism is not believing in the existence of one or more gods (Not to be confused with agnostics, which accept the possibility that such might exist, but they don't worship them). The opposite of secular countries would be something like The Vatican, Saudi Arabia or Iran, where the clergy runs the clergy (theocracies) and legislate according to their religious scriptures.

 

I wanted to make sure, because of this term. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

Sometimes people think some stance is secular, but they do it in such a vehement way, that in fact they create a religion. 

 

[Gorth]

7 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I wanted to make sure, because of this term. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

Sometimes people think some stance is secular, but they do it in such a vehement way, that in fact they create a religion. 

 

Never heard that term before

 

Entirely anecdotal, but I've only seen secular used in the meaning of keeping state and church separate (edit: in regards to governments).

 

Edit: As an example of a failed secular state, see Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk converted Turkey from a medieval, Muslim country into a modern (for its time) European country. Erdogan is busy dismantling all of Ataturks accomplishments and using both nationalism and religion to convert Turkey into something akin to Saudi Arabia and solidify his hold on both state and church by uniting them. Probably maneuvering around MBS as well as he can, biding his time a bit before declaring himself Caliph.

[Gorth]

Joe the pigeon spared by Australia after leg tag found to be fake

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55667045

Back story. Joe was first believed to be an "illegal immigrant", having crossed The Pacific from the US and was scheduled for execution (Australian immigration policy in action). Turns out he may be a domestic pigeon after all.

 

"The department is satisfied that the bird's leg band is a fraudulent copy of a legitimate leg band," the statement said, adding that no further action would be taken against the bird."

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

Joe the pigeon spared by Australia after leg tag found to be fake

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55667045

Back story. Joe was first believed to be an "illegal immigrant", having crossed The Pacific from the US and was scheduled for execution (Australian immigration policy in action). Turns out he may be a domestic pigeon after all.

 

"The department is satisfied that the bird's leg band is a fraudulent copy of a legitimate leg band," the statement said, adding that no further action would be taken against the bird."

I am glad they not going to execute Joe, only in Australia would they consider killing a pigeon that had somehow flown all the from the USA ( if Joe had indeed flown from the USA which now we know he didnt ) due to the "biosecurity risk" ...what does that really mean? And how do you enforce such a law with wild animals that would naturally migrate to the Oz Continent 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Gorth said:

Never heard that term before

 

Entirely anecdotal, but I've only seen secular used in the meaning of keeping state and church separate (edit: in regards to governments).

 

Edit: As an example of a failed secular state, see Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk converted Turkey from a medieval, Muslim country into a modern (for its time) European country. Erdogan is busy dismantling all of Ataturks accomplishments and using both nationalism and religion to convert Turkey into something akin to Saudi Arabia and solidify his hold on both state and church by uniting them. Probably maneuvering around MBS as well as he can, biding his time a bit before declaring himself Caliph.

Turkey is a good example of a state moving from secularism to a more religious state but its far removed form Saudi Arabia and its religious conservatism. And its unlikely it will end up the same as Saudi Arabia 

[Lexx]

6 hours ago, Gorth said:

Joe the pigeon spared by Australia after leg tag found to be fake

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55667045

Back story. Joe was first believed to be an "illegal immigrant", having crossed The Pacific from the US and was scheduled for execution (Australian immigration policy in action). Turns out he may be a domestic pigeon after all.

 

"The department is satisfied that the bird's leg band is a fraudulent copy of a legitimate leg band," the statement said, adding that no further action would be taken against the bird."

If this is serious, it's probably the dumbest stuff I've read today.

If we would kill every bird that is an "illegal immigrant", we'd be shooting birds all day.

[BruceVC]

34 minutes ago, Lexx said:

If this is serious, it's probably the dumbest stuff I've read today.

If we would kill every bird that is an "illegal immigrant", we'd be shooting birds all day.

Not only that Australia is an island, how do you manage birds flying from closer land masses like Asia?

How would you know which birds are local and which birds are foreign invaders

[Skarpen]

15 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Its  a good question if that is what he is asking because there are different ways a person can respond to why anyone doesn't support LGBT rights in a modern Democracy where human rights are part of the Constitution, LGBT rights   like womens rights and religious freedom are all part of human rights. So it becomes inconsistent if you say " I believe in womens rights and support a non-racist society " but you  dont support LGBT rights

Depends on what do you have in mind by saying "LGBT rights". The main narrative seems to be that LGBT person doesn't have the same rights as the rest, which simply isn't true in western world. It's true in some countries in the world, but ironically, similar to feminist movements, LGBT activists don't give a damn about those.

Mashing "LGBT rights" with human rights and constitutional rights in western countries is just an angle to make it seem like those special treatments they advocate are somehow tied to those rights and they are not.

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Depends on what do you have in mind by saying "LGBT rights". The main narrative seems to be that LGBT person doesn't have the same rights as the rest, which simply isn't true in western world. It's true in some countries in the world, but ironically, similar to feminist movements, LGBT activists don't give a damn about those.

Mashing "LGBT rights" with human rights and constitutional rights in western countries is just an angle to make it seem like those special treatments they advocate are somehow tied to those rights and they are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_Europe

While the situation is a lot better than some years ago, there is still a long way to go. As examples your own country doesn't permit adoption, and Hungary explicitly banned LGBT adoption just last month.

[Darkpriest]

35 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_Europe

While the situation is a lot better than some years ago, there is still a long way to go. As examples your own country doesn't permit adoption, and Hungary explicitly banned LGBT adoption just last month.

Have your own kids? No one prevents you from doing that? 

To be honest, I'd more focus on easier access to invitro and perhaps surogate services overall. 

Adoption is a bit tricky in general. There are few families that can do it right, and evolutionary it's proven that it's preferable to have parents of both genders. (there is no mammal with same sex reproduction).

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, it's however justified to have even more scrutinity here. I would not prevent it legally though. It should just have clear criteria, propper vetting and explanations for wanna be parents and proper liability coverage, if those relationships mistreat the kids or force them to do something they would not want. (so parents will not try to create toys out of kids and force upon some ideas of sex change etc.) 

 

For example, trying to adopt a kid (both girl and boy) , who had high testosterone levels at birth will bring more problems down the road to a family without a strong male figure and this needs to be a stable family prospect. 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Skarpen]

18 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_Europe

While the situation is a lot better than some years ago, there is still a long way to go. As examples your own country doesn't permit adoption, and Hungary explicitly banned LGBT adoption just last month.

This would be an example of what I'm talking about. Adoption is neither part of human rights nor constitutional right that every other citizen have, but not LGBT people. Except apparently Hungary which constitutional ban might in fact be overstepping.

Decision about who qualifies to adopt is and should be up to a country and it's citizens. And everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter. And there is no dissonance between supporting human rights and not supporting adoption for lgbt as those are not connected at all.

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Have your own kids? No one prevents you from doing that? 

To be honest, I'd more focus on easier access to invitro and perhaps surogate services overall. 

Adoption is a bit tricky in general. There are few families that can do it right, and evolutionary it's proven that it's preferable to have parents of both genders. (there is no mammal with same sex reproduction).

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, it's however justified to have even more scrutinity here. I would not prevent it legally though. It should just have clear criteria, propper vetting and explanations for wanna be parents and proper liability coverage, if those relationships mistreat the kids or force them to do something they would not want. (so parents will not to try create toys out of kids and force upon some ideas of sex change etc.) 

 

For example, trying to adopt a kid (both girl and boy) , who had high testosterone levels at birth will bring more problems down the road to a family without a strong male figure and this needs to be a stable family prospect. 

 

 

I accept and understand that not all us have connections and friendships with the LGBT  community and that leads to misunderstandings 

For example any argument that makes comparisons between the animal kingdom and LGBT is always going to be deeply flawed. For example someone could argue " you dont see homosexuality in animals so that makes its unnatural " ...this is spurious and false for several reasons that include 

• you do see homosexuality amongst animals, just google it 
• more relevant is why would any human make any comparison to any animal and the animals behavior ? I am not a monkey or dog and human beings have several advanced intellectual traits and characteristics like superior intelligence and the ability to rationalize things and make decisions not based on animal instinct. For example you dont ask your dog or hamster what shares or bonds are a good investment so why would you be concerned with the sexual orientation of any animal,.....this should be irrelevant to your own though process and decisions 
• there are plenty of examples of heterosexual  couples being terrible parents and failing as parents. There is no valid reason or evidence that same sex couples cant raise children in a loving and caring environment, yes some things may be different but these things are not enough to justify a view that says " its always better to have heterosexual family units  having children" 

[Skarpen]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

For example you dont ask your dog or hamster what shares or bonds are a good investment

Maybe you don't. My goldfish is, well, golden when it comes to investments.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Skarpen

[Darkpriest]

@BruceVC

 

I didn't say you don't see such interactions, I just said they do not produce any offspring and do not pair bond long term to upbring the offspring. 

 

I have quite a few such friends. Yes, I'm inclusive, tolerant and do well in diversified communities too. Even they agree that some of the groups are just nutts and they also agree that there is a hihjer rate of promiscuity and swapping of sex partners and lower rate of long term relationships that could substitute a proper family. They also note that their are nutt-cracks in that community chasing clicks and following etc and they would do more harm to kids than good, as they are rooted too deeply in their own ideology and could possibly not tolerate well if the adopted kid would want to be a strong straight figure. 

 

I also say that it should be legal, but the risk factors are different and there are more of them. 

The thing is the difference in vetting and risk would probably have crazy people calling "dsicrimination"

Again, we come to a point of what can be decided in a democratic process. 

 

Again, have your own. Nothing stops you biologically. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Darkpriest

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:

@BruceVC

 

I didn't say you don't see such interactions, I just said they do not produce any offspring and do not pair bond long term to upbring the offspring. 

 

I have quite a few such friends. Yes, I'm inclusive, tolerant and do well in diversified communities too. Even they agree that some of the groups are just nutts and they also agree that there is a hihjer rate of promiscuity and swapping of sex partners and lower rate of long term relationships that could substitute a proper family. They also note that their are nutt-cracks in that community chasing clicks and following etc and they would do more harm to kids than good, as they are rooted too deeply in their own ideology and could possibly not tolerate well if the adopted kid would want to be a strong straight figure. 

Again, have your own. Nothing stops you biologically. 

Yes I know what you said, my point about comparing homosexuality to animals is what other people I have had this debate with have mentioned and raised as a  justification for a statement like " homosexuality is unnatural because you dont see it in the animal kingdom " 

It wasnt directed at you 

[Skarpen]

I think this argumentation died some time ago BruceVC.

[Darkpriest]

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes I know what you said, my point about comparing homosexuality to animals is what other people I have had this debate with have mentioned and raised as a  justification for a statement like " homosexuality is unnatural because you dont see it in the animal kingdom " 

It wasnt directed at you 

Well, having a dog would tell people that animals can hump anything. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Not only that Australia is an island, how do you manage birds flying from closer land masses like Asia?

How would you know which birds are local and which birds are foreign invaders

Shoot first, ask for ID afterwards