Unfortunately, "BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL" is not valid reasoning in the real world.
Sadly, it often appears to be.
I do remember reading an article in the New York Times a year ago or so (could be four weeks or five years) on the Chinese government cracking down on homosexual nightclubs. I can't find it, but when searching for it I found this little tidbit from Kristof.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/29/world/china-using-electrodes-to-cure-homosexuals.html
I do wish I could find that article, just to know if I'm remembering it correctly. I'd also find it amusing to talk about the backwardness of China, considering a large US State had an anti-sodomy (read: anti-homosexuality) law on its books as recently as ~8 years ago (Lawrence v Texas) and which was upheld by the supreme court back in the 80's.
I fly the liberal flag as defiantly as anyone, heck, I briefly did environmental canvassing with the main litigant in the Hopwood Case (total female dog, got our office manager fired out of spite and perhaps jealousy, and went to FSU after the case was won anyway). I'm QUITE familiar with Lawrence v. Texas; since my mother retired from the Office of the Texas Atty. General, perhaps it was inevitable (though she never discussed that or any other case with me, just for the record). Anti-sodomy laws (not just in TX, ours just provided the test case invalidating all of them) applied to everyone, but were only ENFORCED against homosexuals (even that ceased decades ago; Lawrence v. TX was an attempt to reinstate enforcement, and failed spectacularly, as it should). I say that to provide context to the following: Comparing oppression in China with oppression in America, Texas or anywhere else is rather absurd. An antiquated law that was seldom enforced, and struck down the moment TX tried, is hardly on par with electroshocking people into heterosexuality. How sad that that must be explained to anyone....
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
UN votes to allow discrimination against sexual minorities (i.e. homosexuals)
24/11/2010 02:11:44 AM
- 1054 Views
Pretty appalling, but also rather unsurprising on who voted which way. *NM*
24/11/2010 02:32:37 AM
- 323 Views
Some surprises, though.
24/11/2010 02:52:17 AM
- 837 Views
I agree about South Africa - they have legal gay marriage!
24/11/2010 11:04:10 AM
- 717 Views
Yeah, but when they brought that in they didn't have Jacob Zuma for president. *NM*
24/11/2010 02:35:56 PM
- 318 Views
I was surprised to see China there. *NM*
24/11/2010 03:06:12 AM
- 299 Views
Why? Their exemplary record on Civil Rights?
24/11/2010 08:08:57 PM
- 730 Views
When you return from vacationing in the land of False Dichotomy, let me know.
24/11/2010 11:36:08 PM
- 601 Views
Re: Haha.
24/11/2010 11:57:34 PM
- 848 Views
Just so you don't think I'm ignoring this:
25/11/2010 01:25:27 PM
- 850 Views
Re: Oh yeah.
25/11/2010 12:13:28 AM
- 637 Views
As noted, the difference is we don't execute people for it, nor condone those who do.
25/11/2010 01:01:47 PM
- 860 Views
When I don't have to explain the Fourth Amendment to you, lecture me on your lectures.
25/11/2010 12:56:35 PM
- 835 Views
Very sad if not a shock. Democracy doesn't work people!
24/11/2010 11:23:42 AM
- 740 Views
The Law and Justice isn't in power anymore on any level, remember?
24/11/2010 02:29:41 PM
- 775 Views
Very simplistic generalisation here, perhaps you should correct it *NM*
24/11/2010 07:08:54 PM
- 415 Views
He said "tend to", not "are". *NM*
24/11/2010 07:11:47 PM
- 436 Views
It was the inference at a continent level, that I felt was very simplistic.
24/11/2010 07:17:28 PM
- 669 Views
Generalizations are inherently simplified; that doesn't make them inaccurate.
24/11/2010 09:07:24 PM
- 739 Views
It is correct, thank you for your concern though *NM*
24/11/2010 07:58:46 PM
- 305 Views
I disagree
24/11/2010 08:10:11 PM
- 647 Views
Then you are wrong
24/11/2010 08:19:51 PM
- 639 Views
Am I wrong, or are you?
24/11/2010 08:28:26 PM
- 762 Views
You are
24/11/2010 08:41:35 PM
- 602 Views
You did not read my post completely
24/11/2010 08:47:07 PM
- 727 Views
I did
24/11/2010 08:56:39 PM
- 681 Views
Chiming in ONLY because I've gotten so much crap for generalizations over the years.
24/11/2010 09:07:12 PM
- 685 Views
How can such tiny stupid cow states have the same amount of votes we do? Disgusting. *NM*
24/11/2010 02:50:10 PM
- 326 Views
Suddenly "Political Correctness" isn't such a dirty word.
24/11/2010 06:50:06 PM
- 731 Views
I always thought that political correctness was where people used euphemisms
24/11/2010 07:15:16 PM
- 671 Views
In practice it usually means they use non-offensive meaningless euphemisms lest someone object.
24/11/2010 08:25:24 PM
- 761 Views
Implying that people are acceptable the way they seems to be politically correct.
24/11/2010 09:22:58 PM
- 760 Views
definitely. So many people are plain rude and try to justify it with being "more honest"
25/11/2010 03:00:42 AM
- 718 Views
Pretty sad, and surprising that so many nations abstained when they could've swung the vote.
24/11/2010 08:34:58 PM
- 758 Views
Do you ever get tired of your hyperbole?
24/11/2010 09:48:21 PM
- 740 Views
Of course not, it's a legitimate rhetorical device if not used (or taken) literally.
25/11/2010 12:38:55 PM
- 866 Views
Biggest surprise is Chavez. Going against Ahmadinejad, Hu, and Putin? Guess he didn't get the memo. *NM*
25/11/2010 03:36:04 AM
- 405 Views
it is? I didn't see it as a big suprise
25/11/2010 11:03:40 AM
- 827 Views
If you don't stop saying things with which I agree I'm going to think one of us is sick.
25/11/2010 01:10:27 PM
- 1064 Views