Big Bad Bears - Russia and Putin

[peadar1987]

Was it Kinsey? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

I think the current opinion is that there is a genetic predisposition one way or the other, which is then reinforced or counteracted by people's upbringing. The relative effects of both of these aren't really known at the moment. In terms of choice though, it doesn't really matter if someone as born irrevocably gay, or turned out that way because of their upbringing, they still generally are what they are.

[Spudulika]

Was it Kinsey? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

I think the current opinion is that there is a genetic predisposition one way or the other, which is then reinforced or counteracted by people's upbringing. The relative effects of both of these aren't really known at the moment. In terms of choice though, it doesn't really matter if someone as born irrevocably gay, or turned out that way because of their upbringing, they still generally are what they are.

I saw the movie with Liam Neeson (opened the eyes I must say) and this is more along the lines of what I'd heard. There is a Doctor Black, a woman, who is openly lesbian and does couples counselling. I read an academic paper of hers (in a sports journal) and she was making the point about sexual choice etc. I agree that people are what they are. As a student of humans I always want to find out why and how etc, a predisposition makes sense, though I always fear this is seen as a weakness or aberration (again I relate back to gene therapy etc). I remember someone called Kinsey "greedy" as he wanted it all. Must watch that movie again!

[mypost]

So if we are not catholic or deeply religious we have to follow the dictates of the state or the people?They can f off

No they can't, no they don't, and yes you do. As you will see below.


And even if we were hypocrites, and only cared about the Russian laws while ignoring places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, it still wouldn't make the Russian position right.

As far as the Russians are concerned, their position is right, and is what they want their society to be. They don't consider the west right to be "tolerant" of diversity, they consider us weak for having to cater for every section of society, even those we don't like and have no time for.


It's not my religion, and Ireland is not a "catholic nation". Ireland is a secular republic, and there is separation of church and state. Laws are not, and should not, be decided on the basis of religion.


Before folk start harping on about Ireland being a catholic country, the church have little or no influence in Irish society anymore. The catholic church may have a mention in the constitution but doesn't the constitution recognize all religions and the freedom to practice your religion.

I'm sorry, you're wrong there. Our abortion legislation is broadly in line with Rome's. Our education facilities were and are, by and large facilitated by various religious orders. Our christmas and easter traditions are heavily influenced by the church. We still have "fast" days, while Good Friday alcohol legislation is a sop to catholicism. The conflict in NI was fought on religious lines as well as political lines. While I'm no bible-basher, the Irish are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion has a massive influence on our legislation and society.


In other news

As you can probably see, we're way off topic at this stage, and you've been drawn into what constitutes most debate on Putin's Russia in this part of the world. Anyway, back on topic.

Crimea has had it's power, light, gas supplies, and transport links with Ukraine cut. Tourist numbers have collapsed since they had their referendum. When you make political decisions, there are consequences. Wanting to be Russian is the least of their problems right now.

[Spudulika]

Crimea has had it's power, light, gas supplies, and transport links with Ukraine cut. Tourist numbers have collapsed since they had their referendum. When you make political decisions, there are consequences. Wanting to be Russian is the least of their problems right now.

Thank you Mypost! And I think it's interesting that most of the debate in Ireland, UK, USA etc is about a tiny part of a law which has brought about a lot of good - cracking down on alcohol advertising, banning alcohol advertising in sports, banning alcohol sales in sports stadia, cracking down on child porn - and keeping a civil debate on society. The one element hammered is the outward promotion of alternative lifestyles - which happens to include "mystic" phonelines/ins which were milking thousands of their cash nightly. It has allowed the government away with untold excesses.

From personal experience I can count nearly 100 people who didn't travel to Crimea this Summer, and probably the same number of people who would regularly travel to visit relatives in Ukraine in the Autumn. It's an absolute mess and both it and the Donbass have an awful stink of Transdnistria. As in any conflict zone vested interests rise to the top. In Ukraine it has always been corrupt oligarchs calling the shots, in Crimea it is local agitators and some nasty characters. Donbass the same. Today the rouble dropped again and VVP gave further assurance that his ministers won't go on holidays. It's all a show, but in our Irish "democracy" nothing of the sort happened. I will always excuse St. Patrick's Day as it is useful.

In football news, there is an exodus of players from the country as clubs cannot afford their wages - including Tino Costa and Movsisyan. Even at the lower end of Ice Hockey foreign players are returning home. Those whose contracts are in euros or dollars are being told to find a new club, those who are paid in roubles are leaving as the exchange rate is terrible.

One small inside fact about Tino Costa, Spartak are receiving 1.5million euros in a loan fee, he is receiving 300,000 in back wages, the rest is being divvied out amongst players as wages were not paid since early November. Apparently owner Fedun had debts called in from foreign banks and is tapped out. If he goes, the club follows.

[bennocelt]

No they can't, no they don't, and yes you do. As you will see below.

I'm sorry, you're wrong there. Our abortion legislation is broadly in line with Rome's. Our education facilities were and are, by and large facilitated by various religious orders. Our christmas and easter traditions are heavily influenced by the church. We still have "fast" days, while Good Friday alcohol legislation is a sop to catholicism. The conflict in NI was fought on religious lines as well as political lines. While I'm no bible-basher, the Irish are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion has a massive influence on our legislation and society.



Not really, I am Irish after all, a citizen of the country, that does count for something
Church, imho, held our country back for years.

[peadar1987]

No they can't, no they don't, and yes you do. As you will see below.



As far as the Russians are concerned, their position is right, and is what they want their society to be. They don't consider the west right to be "tolerant" of diversity, they consider us weak for having to cater for every section of society, even those we don't like and have no time for.

And the Russians are wrong. The Americans of the Deep South up to about 1970 didn't want their society to be unsegregated, they didn't consider the northern states right to treat blacks as equals, and they considered them weak for catering to them with all this "equal rights" nonsense.

The UK is predominantly non-religious or protestant, depending on how the question in surveys is framed. How would you feel about it if the non-catholic majority refused to "cater for" the catholic minority? Not allowed to hold public church services (because catholicism is a non-traditional lifestyle), catholic marriages don't get the same privileges in terms of visitation rights, inheritance and child custody as protestant ones? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

It's telling that you think the West doesn't like homosexuals and has no time for them by the way. Most people, especially those who are younger or better-educated, don't have the same problem with other people's sex lives as you do.





I'm sorry, you're wrong there. Our abortion legislation is broadly in line with Rome's. Our education facilities were and are, by and large facilitated by various religious orders. Our christmas and easter traditions are heavily influenced by the church. We still have "fast" days, while Good Friday alcohol legislation is a sop to catholicism. The conflict in NI was fought on religious lines as well as political lines. While I'm no bible-basher, the Irish are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion has a massive influence on our legislation and society.

Governments always bow to pressure from powerful lobby groups and voter blocs. That doesn't make us a catholic country, we still have democracy, not some sort of grand Ayatollah dictating things from on high.

As I said, the "catholic country" argument is a weak one. Conservatives say "Most Irish people are catholic, so therefore gay marriage should be illegal". They ignore the fact that almost 70% of Irish people think that it should be legal, regardless of their faith. That's the difference between a catholic country and a secular country that happens to contain many catholics.

[DannyInvincible]

Haven't had the chance to post in a few days, so a lot to cover... :p


Homosexuality is as much about life choice as the choice of the color of your skin.

Even if one's sexuality was a matter of choice, it wouldn't justify prejudice and discrimination. Even if sexual lifestyle, on the other hand, might be a matter of choice, it doesn't justify such either. Personally, I think sexuality, like everything we, as living beings, think or do, is influenced by a combination of one's genetic make-up and their surrounding environment. Not that that necessarily makes sexual feelings a simple matter of choice that can simply be turned on or off at whim.


The full law was to protect youth from undue influence

Is homosexuality an undue influence though? Why can't it be as perfectly safe, loving, human and natural a feeling as a heterosexual desire might be?


But that "some" you speak of is in the billions. As I said before, the issue is simply taboo in most of the world. In extreme cases, marriages are arranged by parents. They are all in traditional format. I don't see the outrage by the west towards countries where such a practice is rife. Just pick on Russia. :(

Such practices are condemned aplenty. We just happen to be having a discussion specifically on Russia here.

Homosexuality isn't a liberal Western phenomenon either. It has been prevalent in human societies (and in the animal kingdom) since not merely the dawn of ancient history but since biological organisms capable of sexual activity came into existence.


In order to keep the human race going, men and women are naturally attracted to each other....

If they follow the natural path they're designed to, your life and theirs would be much easier.

And for whatever reasons - their reasons, for reasons of biology, for reasons of personal taste, perfectly valid reasons, whatever... - some men and men and some women and women are also naturally attracted to one another. Every activity in which a human might naturally engage does not necessarily have to be an act striving towards the reproduction or continuation of our species. Although I'm sure there are evolutionary theories on why homosexual behaviours are so commonplace too. (Indeed, I see Peadar has mentioned some.) Even various species of animals have been observed engaging in homosexual acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals). Bonobo apes, for example, are said to engage in homosexual behaviour to aid social cohesion. Are bonobo apes engaging in an unnatural behaviour when they do so?

What has given you the impression that humans were designed with some specific function or purpose in mind? We don't have an objective set of essential characteristics and traits. We exist and we are what we are, or become what we become, and that is and has to be inherently natural by definition. Classification as "human" or "natural" is a completely subjective and artificial endeavour. Does absolutely everything we do have to be in promotion of our continuation as a species in order for it to be considered natural or valid? Is riding a bicycle somehow unnatural because it doesn't directly keep our race going? Is playing sport unnatural for similar reasons? What about the wearing of clothes? Or what about sexual abstinence even? You talk about Catholic doctrine and its promotion of some natural order of things, but what about sexually abstinent Catholic priests? Are they failing in their "natural obligations"?

Of course the aforementioned activities are not unnatural. These things are all perfectly natural human activities or engagements. Why? Because humans do them. Just because we have the biological capability to reproduce, it doesn't necessitate that the sole thrust of every act in which we engage must be towards that purpose, nor does it even necessitate that every sexual act in which we might engage be working towards that purpose. Our nature frees us to do many things. Saying that we must follow some natural predetermination to reproduce would necessitate that we exist solely to have sexual intercourse with any and every member of the opposite sex whenever physically possible, for, otherwise, we'd be failing in our natural duty or purpose. I hope you can see how ridiculous your stance appears when properly illuminated under such light.

If you disagree and can acknowledge that the emphasis of not every act in which a human can naturally engage must be towards the continuation of our species, then why distinguish a homosexual act from any other human activity? I mean, not all heterosexual-identifying men are attracted to all women and not all heterosexual-identifying women are attracted to all men. Even within these artificial sub-categories of human sexuality, there are preferences. Are you saying such preferences are also unnatural and that to be properly natural we should be attracted to every member of the opposite sex?

Are you saying also that those in society who perceive or experience injustice should just put up with it out of convenience (even when the natural sexual desires of some might be telling them to do otherwise or when the living of a life of heterosexual pretence might be causing immense psychological turmoil and pain)? Would you accept the experience of injustice on the basis of your nature? How can you so blithely say their life would be much easier if only they just put up with it? How should they just put up with it and act completely against their nature and desires? You clearly have no comprehension of the psychology involved here, nor of the psychology of injustice. Broadly-speaking, when would any society ever progress if your unquestioning mindset was the dominant attitude? Racism would still be widespread; maybe even the slave trade. Pseudo-science once taught that the racial supremacy of certain so-called races over supposed others was the one true natural order of things. Thankfully, such nonsense has since been discredited. There would be little social advancement at all if we all lived within the limited parameters of your small-minded world, where the idea of doing new and novel things because we're capable of them would be alien.

[DannyInvincible]

Osarusan, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, albeit one brought about by many, many influences. I do not believe that people are "born this way", that is until a DNA code is produced to prove me wrong. However, like God and Santa (until age 11) I will believe in what is unseen as it cannot be explained away by science. However, I do believe it is a choice and I do not believe or feel it is wrong.

So, when did you decide to be straight then?


And by science/nature, we are designed to procreate, at least supposed to.

Are we? Says who? There's no evidence anywhere to suggest that we have been designed* as a species, let alone designed with some special function or purpose in mind. Science has also observed and documented homosexuality in nature. How can that be if it is unnatural?

*When I say "designed", I mean that there is nothing to suggest we have been designed by some intelligent or directing maker. Our biology may have the appearance of design to some, but that is simply as a result of the fact that we appear to possess a suitability towards our environment(s). That suitability is not as a result of a pre-determined design by some thinking designer though; rather, it is as a result of undirected gene mutation and natural selection, or the process of evolution, in other words. Evolution is an unthinking and undirected phenomenon not guided by intelligence or some over-riding purpose towards some pre-determined goal or end-point. It doesn't have an objective purpose or function. It just happens and we are its result. That doesn't mean that any particular human behaviour is objectively more right, natural or valid than another.


A well known tennis player was abused by a male coach at a very young age (11-15), at 16 she was approached at a tournament by an older female player/coach who (apologies) "turned" her. From 16 to retirement she was an avowed lesbian. Then on retirement promptly married, a man, and told me to my face "It was more convenient being lesbian when I was on the tour." I can name 4 players who did the same, including a double gold winner from the USA (90's).

Maybe she is/they are what society defines as bisexual? You could say we're all potentially pansexual. Maybe the "choice" is in whether or not we want or choose to engage in such acts commonly defined as homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Some of us may not engage in sexual acts at all. Just because this tennis player might have found herself to be more attracted to certain members of one sex over members of another at different points in her life doesn't invalidate her feelings or render them unnatural.

You presumably identify as heterosexual, but that doesn't mean you find every other member of the opposite sex attractive, does it? You'll still discriminate (to use the term completely neutrally) between members of the opposite sex based on your personal preference, I would imagine. Is that something you can choose? Most probably not. Finding it more convenient (for whatever reason) to be with one member of the opposite sex over another at a particular point in time doesn't mean that your whole sexuality is a matter of whimsical choice. Why would it be any different for this tennis player?


If not, then biology would rule against same sex pairings, at least in pure science, though I could be wrong.

How so? Lots of biological beings (humans and animals) engage or have engaged in homosexual acts and have clearly or self-declaredly felt perfectly natural when doing so.


I'm trying to remember the name of the writer who wrote about sexuality being flexible. It was from a comparative study and I am almost certain it had some angle on the LPGA. I could be wrong to say a Dr. Black. But one of the points she made was that some people are able to adapt to environments, that we have predispositions rather than predeterminations.

I think Gore Vidal's thoughts on the matter ('Sexually Speaking' or 'Sex is Politics' especially) are definitely worth exploring. I think of them as being very progressive. Even some LGBT groups find it difficult to identify with or get to grips with Vidal's "haughty" opinions on sexuality (in spite of the fact he spent most of his sexual life engaging in what society would deem homosexual acts) because they transcend the concept or process of categorisation. Vidal eschewed the whole notion of sexual identity/identities.


"Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them.

...

The reason no one has yet been able to come up with a good word to describe the homosexualist (sometimes known as gay, fag, queer, etc.) is because he does not exist. The human race is divided into male and female. Many human beings enjoy sexual relations with their own sex, many don't; many respond to both. This plurality is the fact of our nature and not worth fretting about."

"Look, what I'm preaching is: don't be ghettoized, don't be categorized. Every state tries to categorize its citizens in order to assert control of them."


As far as the Russians are concerned, their position is right, and is what they want their society to be. They don't consider the west right to be "tolerant" of diversity, they consider us weak for having to cater for every section of society, even those we don't like and have no time for.

Is this your position too? The acceptance and protection of minorities and minority interests is all part and parcel of free and open democratic society. Diversity of ideas is strengthening and helps advance our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. That is progress and represents security in the self. Closed societies are grounded in insecurity and fear of difference because the very notion of diversity or contrasting modes of thought might be perceived as threatening to the conservation of the established order. Which is truly the weaker grounding here?

And you may drop the "we", thanks. I'm not sure most people from Ireland would actually agree with you in positively disliking those you consider to be non-traditional.


I'm sorry, you're wrong there. Our abortion legislation is broadly in line with Rome's. Our education facilities were and are, by and large facilitated by various religious orders. Our christmas and easter traditions are heavily influenced by the church. We still have "fast" days, while Good Friday alcohol legislation is a sop to catholicism. The conflict in NI was fought on religious lines as well as political lines. While I'm no bible-basher, the Irish are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion has a massive influence on our legislation and society.

Irish laws are of the people. They are not of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church may have some influence over some of the Irish population, but we remain a secular republic. Catholicism is not "our" religion. Many Irish people subscribe to other beliefs and faith systems too, or none even. Or are you in denial of the shared Irishness of these others too? Do you deny me my Irishness because I might be an agnostic atheist?

And just on the conflict in the north; it was not a theological conflict (and certainly not from the Irish nationalist/republican perspective oft-lazily dubbed "Catholic"). Religion came to be a social marker (for reasons other than contrasting theology), certainly, but no serious Irish republican (even if he or she also happened to be Catholic) ever got involved in the struggle out of some desire to crush Protestantism or to convert Protestants into believing in transubstantiation or the veneration of the Blessed Virgin.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Jesus Danny what a fantastic couple of posts

[Charlie Darwin]

Bonobo apes, for example, are said to engage in homosexual behaviour to aid social cohesion. Are bonobo apes engaging in an unnatural behaviour when they do so?
They're an abonobonation of god.

[Spudulika]

Even if one's sexuality was a matter of choice, it wouldn't justify prejudice and discrimination. Even if sexual lifestyle, on the other hand, might be a matter of choice, it doesn't justify such either. Personally, I think sexuality, like everything we, as living beings, think or do, is influenced by a combination of one's genetic make-up and their surrounding environment. Not that that necessarily makes sexual feelings a simple matter of choice that can simply be turned on or off at whim.

Is homosexuality an undue influence though? Why can't it be as perfectly safe, loving, human and natural a feeling as a heterosexual desire might be?
.

I am of the same opinion (as to the reason/cause/root etc). As ou described in the animal kingdom some species have it as de rigeur. The Greeks, Spartans, ancient Irish etc apparently all did the same, though it must always be taken carefully the relation of such historic tales as we view them through the Victorian prism, where public schooloys were routinely molested to make them better men (we had the same jokes about christian brothers - "making a man of you" when I was in school). Though rather than creating homosexuals, it just created generations of very damaged individuals.

On the point of being attracted to every member of the opposite sex - we need to separate male from female in this....for obvious reasons. Women, generally, think and choose. But this is me generalising.

Danny, the point I was making (about undue influence) was the broad range of measures that the government were using to rebuild society. Personally I believe their should be helplines, info centres etc for the LGBT community - however leaders of the community here, and visitors from Europe and the US (including Peter Tatchell) made a ridiculous comparison with alcohol and narcotic help centres/resources. THis was pounced on by bilious talking heads to slam them as degenerates.

There are info centres, there are gay marches, there are websites and helplines, so as with any law in any country, it will come down to how it is tested. The part of this law regarding alcohol has worked, though this is down to the industry playing it safe.

At the end of the story, it boils down to what the vast majority want, and the government are playing to it. When the so-called leaders of the revolution, including Nemtsov and Navalny, are talking about re-educating gays, you know there is a long way to go.

[Spudulika]

So, when did you decide to be straight then?
Probably when I found girls more attractive, and realised my pain threshold would not see me last long in prison. I can appreciate good looking men, but the equipment is off putting.



Are we? Says who? There's no evidence anywhere to suggest that we have been designed* as a species, let alone designed with some special function or purpose in mind. Science has also observed and documented homosexuality in nature. How can that be if it is unnatural?

True, in a sense, though I believe we are and certainly there are examples in nature of same sex sexual interaction, though does this mean that heterosexual relations are wrong or unnatural? Should we all go gay? Or should people be allowed to interact with other consenting adults as they see fit (no pun).



Just because this tennis player might have found herself to be more attracted to certain members of one sex over members of another at different points in her life doesn't invalidate her feelings or render them unnatural.
Where were her feelings invalidated? If she chose to be in a lesbian relationship and then a hetero one, she has the right to choose. However it does raise questions as to the reasons/causes of sexual nature and moves more towards the choice (through nature and nurture) than "born this way". Regardless, it helped her career so why not.


You presumably identify as heterosexual, but that doesn't mean you find every other member of the opposite sex attractive, does it? You'll still discriminate (to use the term completely neutrally) between members of the opposite sex based on your personal preference, I would imagine. Is that something you can choose? Most probably not. Finding it more convenient (for whatever reason) to be with one member of the opposite sex over another at a particular point in time doesn't mean that your whole sexuality is a matter of whimsical choice. Why would it be any different for this tennis player?

This doesn't quite make sense, sorry. If you are talking about bisexuality or choosing between genders, they are different matters. In addition attractiveness and interaction are different matters, regardless of sexual preference.

Wouldn't be a big fan of Gore Vidal, apart from his work being a bit over praised (especially Duluth), I fully turned off once he did his diatribe about Roman Polanski. Which doesn't take away from his general stances, just that he tried to be smarter than the average cat and made less sense. I do agree with him on becoming ghettoized, but this runs against the grain of the modern liberal (which he would have died again dealing with).

What is most interesting in matters of sexual preference is that the "enlightened" truly go ott to educate the dummies. Those who believe homosexuality is wrong or a sin, will pull up their evidence and quote scripture, those who believe those who believe homosexuality is wrong are wrong, will throw in everything they can and run them down as backwards or evil or facists. Anybody who dares to question will be seen as insulting or somehow uninformed.

It would be far better if people were allowed to live as they wish, to choose what they choose and not fear public disgrace or retribution for their choice, stance or belief system, or sexual choice - be it bi, hetero, lesbian, gay, transgender.

[Eminence Grise]

Only here could a discussion abut big bad bears descend into a lively discussion on homosexuality with never a trace of irony!:rainbow:

[Spudulika]

Well, now you've gotten to the "bottom" of the matter, we can get back on "top" of the discussion.

Some worrying signs for after the 12th. Everyone is on hoilday and nobody thinking much (openly) about what is going on. However, VVP's speech on New Years Eve did little to help. His "Crimea voted to return to our motherland" was a bit much, but his idiotic speech was as bland and pointless as, well, anything Coke can come up with. And oddly, the speech was written by a US ex-Coke executive.

[DannyInvincible]

Danny, the point I was making (about undue influence) was the broad range of measures that the government were using to rebuild society. Personally I believe their should be helplines, info centres etc for the LGBT community - however leaders of the community here, and visitors from Europe and the US (including Peter Tatchell) made a ridiculous comparison with alcohol and narcotic help centres/resources. THis was pounced on by bilious talking heads to slam them as degenerates.

There are info centres, there are gay marches, there are websites and helplines, so as with any law in any country, it will come down to how it is tested. The part of this law regarding alcohol has worked, though this is down to the industry playing it safe.

You're not of the belief that homosexuality is an undue influence though, are you, or do you think it is fair to categorise it as one of these many other perceived undue influences? And, just for the avoidance of any smidgen of doubt, I assume, if I'm reading you correctly, that you advocate the idea of help centres in order to help homosexuals deal with possible social-political repression/discrimination and familial marginalisation rather than to "help cure" themselves of some "mental illness"?


At the end of the story, it boils down to what the vast majority want, and the government are playing to it. When the so-called leaders of the revolution, including Nemtsov and Navalny, are talking about re-educating gays, you know there is a long way to go.

Forgive me if I borrow another Vidal quote: "At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice." :o


Probably when I found girls more attractive, and realised my pain threshold would not see me last long in prison. I can appreciate good looking men, but the equipment is off putting.

So, are you saying that human sexuality (our sexual desires; be they heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual...) is a matter of choice?

But you didn't choose to find girls more attractive, did you? As you say, you just found them to be that way, presumably due to some non-conscious feeling over which you had/have no cognitive control. Your pain threshold isn't something over which you have cognitive control either. You speak of there having been a realisation. That you find male genitalia off-putting is similarly governed by the unconscious. You're speaking of responses that have nothing to do with the separate and distinct realm of decision-making. Sexual arousal has nothing to do with the part of the brain responsible for decision-making. Rather, it is governed by the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems; they are unconscious and non-cognitive.

We can choose to act upon desires or not, certainly, we can even try to suppress desires, but we can't choose whether or not to have desires. We wouldn't be human otherwise.


True, in a sense, though I believe we are and certainly there are examples in nature of same sex sexual interaction, though does this mean that heterosexual relations are wrong or unnatural? Should we all go gay? Or should people be allowed to interact with other consenting adults as they see fit (no pun).

People should be allowed to interact with other consenting adults as they see fit. Engaging in solely heterosexual relations is also perfectly natural. It is perfectly natural because some humans do it. Humans are a part of the natural world, after all.


Where were her feelings invalidated? If she chose to be in a lesbian relationship and then a hetero one, she has the right to choose. However it does raise questions as to the reasons/causes of sexual nature and moves more towards the choice (through nature and nurture) than "born this way". Regardless, it helped her career so why not.

Apologies, I shouldn't have implied you were suggesting her feelings were invalidated on the basis that you were arguing her sexuality was a choice. Rather, you were saying her sexuality could be, or was, a choice but that that is still perfectly valid (or right or natural)? Fair enough. However, I would argue she is a bisexual who is simply making a choice out of the options available, whatever might be most convenient or suitable for her at whatever particular time, which is her right to do so. Was she genuinely choosing which sex might have triggered arousal?


This doesn't quite make sense, sorry. If you are talking about bisexuality or choosing between genders, they are different matters. In addition attractiveness and interaction are different matters, regardless of sexual preference.

Are they really different matters though? Why introduce such a distinction? Gender doesn't have to come into it when we're simply discussing who we as humans find to be attractive due to our sexuality. In terms of preference, heterosexuals still (unthinkingly or not) differentiate between members of the opposite sex, homosexuals still differentiate between members of the same sex and bisexuals still differentiate between members of both sexes. Despite the varying preferences, each preference still falls under the umbrella of sexual attraction. Sexual preference can transcend gender and is not restricted by the concept.


On the point of being attracted to every member of the opposite sex - we need to separate male from female in this....for obvious reasons. Women, generally, think and choose. But this is me generalising.

I think I have covered this directly above, but what are the obvious reasons for a necessary separation of genders for the purposes of a discussion on sexual attraction exactly? If you think I've not explained my point satisfactorily above, point out where you think it's lacking and I'll be happy to try and re-iterate it in some other terms.


Wouldn't be a big fan of Gore Vidal, apart from his work being a bit over praised (especially Duluth), I fully turned off once he did his diatribe about Roman Polanski. Which doesn't take away from his general stances, just that he tried to be smarter than the average cat and made less sense. I do agree with him on becoming ghettoized, but this runs against the grain of the modern liberal (which he would have died again dealing with).

I can't say he doesn't have other faults. Whether or not he was seeking attention in later life, the outburst about Polanski's victim was reprehensible. Perhaps it was confirmation that he was a past-it intellect. I was simply suggesting his thoughts specifically on the topic at hand might be relevant and constructive/instructive. On the idea of "ghettoisation", he was getting at something similar to the idea of bourgeois nationalism or the notion of identity politics (basing your political goals on perceived or real group marginalisation) dividing or fracturing the broader civil community and its interests, isn't he? I don't think the idea that such fragmentation inhibits the creation of genuine opportunities for ending marginalisation by setting one marginalised group against the other in terms of having their voices heard or the idea that affirmations of difference might perpetuate marginalisation are things with which a modern liberal need necessarily disagree.

[Spudulika]

You're not of the belief that homosexuality is an undue influence though, are you, or do you think it is fair to categorise it as one of these many other perceived undue influences? And, just for the avoidance of any smidgen of doubt, I assume, if I'm reading you correctly, that you advocate the idea of help centres in order to help homosexuals deal with possible social-political repression/discrimination and familial marginalisation rather than to "help cure" themselves of some "mental illness"?
I have no opinion in any sense as I do not judge others for their lifestyle choice, to each their own. I believe that they should have continued access to help/information centres, as for the moment (even in the most "enlightened" societies there is still a need) it is important to inform and support, especially in the realm of sexual health - the same with teens and the heterosexual community. I am not aware of any "re-orientation" places, though no doubt there is, no doubt the church is involved and no doubt there are 2 sides to the argument.




So, are you saying that human sexuality (our sexual desires; be they heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual...) is a matter of choice?
It is one opinion, another is that people are born with predilections (nature), another is that it is due to external societal influences (nurture), or that it is a mental dysfunction, that it is chemical, that it is a result of trauma, it is a result of x, y, z. It is entirely wrong to be entirely sure or determined to force home one point or another, one cause or another. I personally believe that if 2 consenting adults wish to enjoy each others company they should be allowed to do so.


Apologies, I shouldn't have implied you were suggesting her feelings were invalidated on the basis that you were arguing her sexuality was a choice. Rather, you were saying her sexuality could be, or was, a choice but that that is still perfectly valid (or right or natural)? Fair enough. However, I would argue she is a bisexual who is simply making a choice out of the options available, whatever might be most convenient or suitable for her at whatever particular time, which is her right to do so. Was she genuinely choosing which sex might have triggered arousal?
In that particular case there are so many grey areas that it is unfair to comment other than that she did what she did and later in life (she's still young) choose to marry a man and have children. However there are many cases, including hers though I have questions, where it is not a simple "bisexual" tendency. A case in point: Martina Navratilova has changed her story many times, though the original and most pointed is that she was sexually abused by a substantially older male coach as a young teen. She engaged in a semi-consentual relationship with a younger male coach, had a pregnancy scare and "swore off" sex. It was around this time (still a teen) she began travelling with an older female pro who became her first lover. From this, what can be made? She came from a fractured background, was vulnerable and now lives a happy life with her new Russian partner. What is objectionable is the abuse of a minor, simply that. She is now in a good place in her life and settled, and a really wonderful person to boot.



I think I have covered this directly above, but what are the obvious reasons for a necessary separation of genders for the purposes of a discussion on sexual attraction exactly? If you think I've not explained my point satisfactorily above, point out where you think it's lacking and I'll be happy to try and re-iterate it in some other terms.
While appreciated and interesting to read someone's views on the topic, I don't see the need. To each their own and it is entirely within the right of adult human beings to be with whom they choose, regardless of gender, race or creed.




I can't say he doesn't have other faults. Whether or not he was seeking attention in later life, the outburst about Polanski's victim was reprehensible. Perhaps it was confirmation that he was a past-it intellect. I was simply suggesting his thoughts specifically on the topic at hand might be relevant and constructive/instructive. On the idea of "ghettoisation", he was getting at something similar to the idea of bourgeois nationalism or the notion of identity politics (basing your political goals on perceived or real group marginalisation) dividing or fracturing the broader civil community and its interests, isn't he?
It's difficult to read the exact meaning behind a polemicist, though for the Polanski issue he had sense to make, though it just was wrong and too polemical. It boils back to the old school (regardless of background) that "stuff happens". I think his point was that Polanski came from a different background (French/European) where "this sort of thing" was permissable, that girls could be just as bad hustlers as males, that this stuff goes on because it always has. I remember at the time thinking, I wish he has broadened it out from showbusiness - or at least used it as a platform to attack real criminality in the industry.

Agree on the ghetto idea. Making yourself "special" leaves you open to special attention, which again feeds into the rage machine on all sides and allows for self-publicists and vested interests to take hold.

[Spudulika]

A lot of worry here at present, oil below $50 a barrel, a new structure of investment relations and laws in force to allow "capital return". There have been some other laws from Jan 1st which snuck in. One scare that began in October last year was a law to "ban iphones". As a non-owner I'm okay with it, but it actually wasn't a law at all. It was a reaction from Apple to stop selling their products in Russia due to currency fluctuations. I bought an iPhone for a prize for 30,000rbs in July, the same item is over 50,000rbs now. So Apple halted distribution, but needed a good cover for it - and it was Mikhailov and Partners (local pr firm) who directed the online and media campaign to soften the blow.

Another law in is the blog law, which requests that any blog with 3,000 or more readers register their real name with the government (actually with the tax authorities). The angle was a clamp down on free speech - partially true - though it is more a means of gathering taxes and controlling advertisements/product placements etc. An example, a blogger in Kazan has more than 20,000 followers, he works with AK Bars bank and reviews financial products. His identity put a bit of a halt to his earnings when it was discovered that he'd been bigging up his employers products because it was his job, but he was a "crusader" until that point.

And...in football, the exodus is worrying, for hockey also. Could be a ripe time for LOI clubs to pick up top level performers for peanuts - or spuds anyway :-)

[Spudulika]

Oil down again - 45,62$ a barrel. Shale oil is getting hit hard, all those North Dakotan boom towns suddenly questioning the value of bulk buying Levi jeans and cowboy boots.

One another topic, a very interesting point made on a tv chat show (on the only, kind of, liberal channel left). A correspondant from Radio Ekho (willfind her name in a minute) spoke about how the terror in Paris is a daily issue in Russia. She gave a list of statistics from an NGO and one from the government on murders in the RF of a) journos and b) civilians. The overwhelming number of b) is the usual gang or friend/family, but when she broke it down there are 2.2 people killed each day by Islamic terrorists. She discounted security forces and police from the total. In the meantime the government keep a lid on anti-muslim speak and protests.

[DannyInvincible]

Are those attacks Chechen-related?

In relation to your raising of the case of Martina Navratilova above, I suppose it shows we can potentially be anything and everything depending on genetic make-up, upbringing and life circumstances.

[Spudulika]

Are those attacks Chechen-related?

In relation to your raising of the case of Martina Navratilova above, I suppose it shows we can potentially be anything and everything depending on genetic make-up, upbringing and life circumstances.

Danny, (2nd part), this is the nub of the whole issue in relation to sexuality etc, it just cannot be down to 1 thing or another, and I always feel very uncomfortable when there is a complete railroading into one category or reason. And ultimately, once 2 adults are happy to be together, fair enough.

On the Chechens, no, not completely. Although we need to take into account the overflow from Chechnya into the holding camps of Dagestan, Ingueshetia etc. There is a sizeable rump of anti-Kadyrov Chechens who have divided into 2 camps, moderates who want democracy and a Islamo-themed state like Jordan, and those who were educated by Saudi's (after the Iranian backed teachers were murdered) to live by Sharia. The latter are the ones who carry out the bombings (suicide and other) and attacks on civil society. Quite a number have flocked to big urban centres in the south - Volgograd, Rostov, Krasnodar and even here in Voronezh. They have a completely different mental make up and it is not down to recent events, but to a heady mix of religion, culture, drugs and alcohol.

And I know it was brought up in another thread (by me) in relation to Free PR, the status of minorities, eg sexual, is not covered in the whole of the RF. In areas where sharia law redominates in the south, homosexuals have been flogged and beaten (I have not heard of murder), many young gay males have fled to Moscow and in Moscow I knew 1 lesbian from Makhachkala who was thrown out of her home by her educated and moderate father as he feare personal retribution. Anyway, that's off topic!

Luckily this year the feared ISIS threats did not materialise, after what happened in Volgograd last December it was a bit nervy moving about.

[Spudulika]

Some very strange things in Russia, and not really covered outside. The former liberal "icon" Navalny was due to have his sentencing confirmed (3 1/2 years), along with his brother, and there was a march of about 100 pro-navalny-ites. A counter march of 500-800 pro-Kremlin supporters met them. There were arrests on both sides, the usual gombeens jumping out like LOI fans, but without umbrellas, and lots of chanting. The cossacks were also out around the country, parading with crosses and icons. Navalny, on Radio Ekho, decried his fate. He said that many more businessmen get away with more yet because he was challenging the authorities his records were pored over.

Most worrying is the arrival on the streets of "Sabin's Peace Patrol" with their ribbons and attitude. I need to read more about them, but it's a member of United Russia who set up a law and order force to prevent another Maidan. This was the threat by Navalny and his people, that Maidan would be in Moscow. Which scared the living daylights out of most liberals, professionals and thinkers.

[DannyInvincible]

MyPost; I dunno if you've not been on or if you've simply decided to drop out of the prior discussion on sexuality and not bother responding to my points, but, in light of your reliance in argument on and advocation of the Catholic interpretation of the Bible on the matter, you might find this a thought-provoking read if you get a chance: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sex_couples_point_by_point_wh y_the_haters_are_wrong/

It's an excerpt from 'God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same Sex Relationships' by Matthew Vines.

[Spudulika]

Two excellent reports from Russian TV a couple of weeks ago will soon come to light in the english media (it's not Moscow and most in the english media are afraid to venture from the capitals) - and it's causing a ruckus. Pepsico have gone all out to drive product sales this year, Coke too. Increased advertising, backing of government projects - gloves are off. Why? One region (Vologda) banned sales of fizzy drinks to minors - ALL fizzy drinks. Wait for this to grow!

[mypost]

The UK is predominantly non-religious or protestant, depending on how the question in surveys is framed. How would you feel about it if the non-catholic majority refused to "cater for" the catholic minority? Not allowed to hold public church services (because catholicism is a non-traditional lifestyle), catholic marriages don't get the same privileges in terms of visitation rights, inheritance and child custody as protestant ones? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Discrimination does happen to us, albeit not much in the UK. Instead it happens in the USA, and we know it as the "undocumented Irish".


It's telling that you think the West doesn't like homosexuals and has no time for them by the way. Most people, especially those who are younger or better-educated, don't have the same problem with other people's sex lives as you do.

I didn't write the first sentence, and it's not about "education" in the second. It's about realising what the natural order of man/woman attraction is. Men and women are biologically designed to be attracted to each other, because a) they are fundamentally different, and b) to keep the human race going. So those who have turned their back on that order have made a choice to be different. And they celebrate that choice in their own ways. But you can't do that one minute, then demand equality when it suits.


Why can't it be as perfectly safe, loving, human and natural a feeling as a heterosexual desire might be?

See above.


Is this your position too? The acceptance and protection of minorities and minority interests is all part and parcel of free and open democratic society. Diversity of ideas is strengthening and helps advance our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. That is progress and represents security in the self. Closed societies are grounded in insecurity and fear of difference because the very notion of diversity or contrasting modes of thought might be perceived as threatening to the conservation of the established order. Which is truly the weaker grounding here?

In Russia, people are overwhelmingly conservative, and they prefer order over liberalism. While in society in general, there are behaviours, rules, and laws for people to observe and follow. Those who follow them have an easy life. Those who choose to complicate matters and/or not follow them face a different life.


The Catholic Church may have some influence over some of the Irish population, but we remain a secular republic. Catholicism is not "our" religion. Many Irish people subscribe to other beliefs and faith systems too, or none even. Or are you in denial of the shared Irishness of these others too? Do you deny me my Irishness because I might be an agnostic atheist?

It doesn't bother me what you are. The undeniable reality however is that Irish people are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion is very conservative in many ways. I'm not a bible-basher at all, but I stand squarely with it's stance on this specific issue. One I'd rather not deal with, as unfortunately in Ireland today, there's little tolerance for the alternative view. But regrettably, it's inevitable these days when Russia is brought up, and that says more about Irish people than them.

[mypost]

Now back on topic.

The UN says that an average of 29 people are losing their lives in Eastern Ukraine every day. The toll has now passed 5,000. That's FIVE THOUSAND people, many of whom are innocent victims, who just wanted a normal life, under a government (either Ukraine or Russia) able to guarantee their security and freedom to go about their daily business as they wish.

As I don't believe the West influenced the Kiev uprising, I don't believe the conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk is being orchestrated by Moscow. It's as accurate as saying that the Irish government was responsible for atrocities in Britain during the troubles, which was never the case.

20 people were shot in Paris recently. There was rolling coverage of the events for several days, and many world leaders showed up to be seen in Paris, some of them with at best, questionable approaches to the notion of free speech. By contrast, 30 people were slaughtered in Mariupol at the weekend, 80 were injured. There was no outpourings of sympathy for them and Europe's media were more interested in an election in Greece with a toll of 0.

Priorities, priorities.

[Spudulika]

Now back on topic.

The UN says that an average of 29 people are losing their lives in Eastern Ukraine every day. The toll has now passed 5,000. That's FIVE THOUSAND people, many of whom are innocent victims, who just wanted a normal life, under a government (either Ukraine or Russia) able to guarantee their security and freedom to go about their daily business as they wish.

As I don't believe the West influenced the Kiev uprising, I don't believe the conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk is being orchestrated by Moscow. It's as accurate as saying that the Irish government was responsible for atrocities in Britain during the troubles, which was never the case.

20 people were shot in Paris recently. There was rolling coverage of the events for several days, and many world leaders showed up to be seen in Paris, some of them with at best, questionable approaches to the notion of free speech. By contrast, 30 people were slaughtered in Mariupol at the weekend, 80 were injured. There was no outpourings of sympathy for them and Europe's media were more interested in an election in Greece with a toll of 0.

Priorities, priorities.

Although I wouldn't agree with the balance you're showing with the blame game (Maidan-Rebels), I agree completely with the overwhelming non-interest in what's happening in Ukraine. The Irish media are biased towards Greece - money and politics, the World media loved Paris - Oh La La French factor, media and religion, while the conflict in Ukraine is bubbling away, waiting for the Spring thaw and re-invigorated slaughter. Here we're getting (mostly) one side, but I've met refugees from Ukraine, they're very blunt in what they see as two criminal groups having at one another.

The media rolled from Ukraine (having shot their load on the maidan for a few days), ISIS, Paris (shortcutting it all) and nobody cared. Nobody cares that in Lugansk oblast there are villages without electricity or oil/gas since December - we're at -11 here today and it's terrible, there it's -20 today. Thousands of children had to be given school places in September this year in regions from Rostov to Belgorod to Voronezh - where there is already a strain on the regional budget to re-open school places shut down in the early 2000's.

The Russian economy garnered more words than the conflict, and Mariupol, like Markale shelling in Sarajevo, nabs a few headlines but disappears from view. And this morning it's all Greece. There is a new Bosnia heating up in Ukraine and we haven't even seen the ethnic communities yet.

[DannyInvincible]

Discrimination does happen to us, albeit not much in the UK. Instead it happens in the USA, and we know it as the "undocumented Irish".

And you'd advise those Irish on the end of discrimination to avoid complicating matters by just following the rules?


It's about realising what the natural order of man/woman attraction is. Men and women are biologically designed to be attracted to each other, because a) they are fundamentally different, and b) to keep the human race going. So those who have turned their back on that order have made a choice to be different.

I'm sorry to say, but that's just pseudo-scientific bunkum. I made a number of points outlining why this simply cannot be the case (http://foot.ie/threads/196660-Big-Bad-Bears-Russia-and-Putin?p=1798648&viewfull=1#post1798648) up-thread, although you seem to have by-passed them, conveniently. There is no "natural order" to realise, nor is there is some "biological design" with a purpose for us in the mind of some designer. I'm not sure how you can casually make such claims without even attempting to back them up. Humans are a part and product of nature; our actions, thoughts and desires are, therefore, natural by definition. Even if you seek to separate us from nature, how do you explain homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, if there is some natural order of things? Just because things might be fundamentally different, doesn't mean they have to be attracted anyway. Do you find yourself attracted to every woman, because that is how you were designed, supposedly? If not, then aren't you turning your back on this supposed order? What about priests who decide to remain abstinent and decline to reproduce? Are they defying this order?


It doesn't bother me what you are. The undeniable reality however is that Irish people are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion is very conservative in many ways. I'm not a bible-basher at all, but I stand squarely with it's stance on this specific issue. One I'd rather not deal with, as unfortunately in Ireland today, there's little tolerance for the alternative view. But regrettably, it's inevitable these days when Russia is brought up, and that says more about Irish people than them.

Very little tolerance for "the alternative view"? You mean your view? C'mon, you're having a laugh. Isn't "the alternative view" (which is an outrageous and insulting description for an establishment position that has enjoyed such mainstream sway for so long to the great suffering of many anyway) an inherently intolerant one itself? It seeks to stick its nose in and cast negative moral judgment on the private family affairs of consenting adults.

And what do you think the raising of this issue when Russia is mentioned says about Irish people exactly?

[peadar1987]

Discrimination does happen to us, albeit not much in the UK. Instead it happens in the USA, and we know it as the "undocumented Irish".


And do you think this is okay (and incidentally, this is far less severe than the discrimination Russian homosexuals are facing, or my hypothetical anti-catholic UK)? Because initially you seemed to be defending the Russians for sticking to their guns and going with what the majority wanted, flying in the face of what the "weak" West thinks:



As far as the Russians are concerned, their position is right, and is what they want their society to be. They don't consider the west right to be "tolerant" of diversity, they consider us weak for having to cater for every section of society, even those we don't like and have no time for.


If you weren't referring to homosexuals in the last sentence, who do you think the West is catering for, in spite of not liking them, and having no time for them?

As for the "natural order", it is the natural order for humans to sh*t in the corner of a cave and die of septicemia at the age of 28, but I don't see you or the catholic church defending that.

[DannyInvincible]

Some further interesting reading on various research done into human sexuality: http://blog.ted.com/2014/02/20/6-studies-that-offer-fascinating-conclusions-about-human-sexuality/


The standard narrative of human sexual evolution says: men provide women with goods and services in exchange for women’s sexual fidelity. But is that really true or relevant today? Christopher Ryan, the co-author of Sex at Dawn with Cacilda Jethá, takes a deeper look (http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omni vores.html) and has quite a few bones to pick with this idea.

Ryan explains that our sexual patterns are an outgrowth of agricultural models—which accounts for only about five percent of human history. For the other 95 percent, human sexuality was “a way of establishing and maintaining the complex flexible social systems, networks, that our ancestors were very good at.” In hunter-gatherer societies, there were overlapping sexual relationships between members of a community—a more fluid system than the Victorian model we’re wedded to today. In fact, several contemporary societies around the world argue against the sexual myth we’ve built up, too.

“My hope is that a more accurate updated understanding of human sexuality will lead us to have greater tolerance for ourselves, for each other, greater respect for unconventional relationship configurations like same-sex marriage or polyamorous unions, and that we’ll finally put to rest the idea that men have some innate instinctive right to monitor and control women’s sexual behavior,” Ryan says. “And we’ll see that it’s not only gay people that have to come out of the closet: we all have closets we have to come out of.”

Below, read up on some more lines of research that suggest out-of-the-box ideas about our sexuality.

Question: Is bisexuality a sexual orientation, something that’s temporary or an outgrowth of the sexual fluidity we all exhibit?

Research: In a 2008 study, Lisa M. Diamond of the University of Utah presented the results of a decade-long assessment of nearly 70 women who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or sexually unlabelable. Five times over the course of the study, the women detailed their sexual identities, attractions, behaviors, and their social and familial relationships.

Results: Based on Diamond’s findings, bisexuality is not a “transitional stage that women adopt ‘on the way’ to lesbian identification” or an “experimental phase” for heterosexuals. Her results, instead, supported that, “Bisexuality may best be interpreted as a stable pattern of attraction to both sexes in which the specific balance of same-sex to other-sex desires necessarily varies according to interpersonal and situational factors,” she writes.

Question: Which comes first—desire or arousal?

Research: In a study from 2004, described in this New York Times article, Ellen Laan, Stephanie Both and Mark Spiering of the University of Amsterdam examined participants’ physical responses to sexual images.

Results: The research indicates that we respond physically to highly sexual visuals before our mind even engages with them. In other words, desire doesn’t precede arousal—it’s the other way around. And we aren’t even aware it’s happening.

...

[mypost]

And you'd advise those Irish on the end of discrimination to avoid complicating matters by just following the rules?

I didn't advise anyone. What I am saying is "When in Rome?..."


I'm sorry to say, but that's just pseudo-scientific bunkum. There is no "natural order" to realise, nor is there is some "biological design" with a purpose for us in the mind of some designer. I'm not sure how you can casually make such claims without even attempting to back them up. Humans are a part and product of nature; our actions, thoughts and desires are, therefore, natural by definition. Just because things might be fundamentally different, doesn't mean they have to be attracted anyway. What about priests who decide to remain abstinent and decline to reproduce? Are they defying this order?

You've answered your own question. They have made a decision. The realities of that decision are well known, and what they choose to live with.

Then you contradict yourself, telling us that humans are a product of nature, after saying we have no natural order. Now it has to be one or the other, not both. I have backed up my "claims" in the last post with a) and b).

The majority of countries are completely intolerant of non-hetero practices, and in some cases, execute those found doing so. What the Russians have done barely registers by comparison, yet it's the big issue about the country in western media.

Eurovision is the biggest annual live music concert in the world, where cover versions are banned, and where performers either sink or swim in front of several hundreds of millions of people over 3 minutes. Yet we're informed that this wonderful celebration of European culture is defined and dismissed in the west as a homofest, which I take serious offence to, especially when 99.9% of organisers and performers in it are as straight as a wall.


And what do you think the raising of this issue when Russia is mentioned says about Irish people exactly?

This thread is supposed to be about Russia, it's culture, it's identity, it's relations with it's neighbours, Chechnya, Ukraine, the fact that people are losing their lives everyday in massive numbers across the border, the oil/gas situation, and the knock on effects on the Russian/world economy, etc. There's a tonne of material there to work with.

Sadly, it's yet again hijacked by a pointless debate on the same sht issue that has killed a total of 0, for a country with frankly far more serious issues to deal with.

[DannyInvincible]

I didn't advise anyone. What I am saying is "When in Rome?..."

That proverb doesn't quite apply to gay Russians who suffer discrimination in Russia as a result of their sexuality though, does it? Gay Russians aren't exactly temporarily visiting a foreign country or culture. They are born into Russian culture and are part of it. They are products of Russian society. They are Russian citizens with voices.

Are you OK then with what you view as the discrimination of the "undocumented Irish" in the US? Why even bring it up, as if it was something with which you were taking issue?

Does the idea of a tyranny of the majority under which minority rights are of little or no concern appeal to you?


You've answered your own question. They have made a decision. The realities of that decision are well known, and what they choose to live with.

But are priests, like those who engage in homosexual acts, defying your supposed "natural order" because they don't engage in intercourse with the opposite sex?


Then you contradict yourself, telling us that humans are a product of nature, after saying we have no natural order. Now it has to be one or the other, not both. I have backed up my "claims" in the last post with a) and b).

Not at all. If you've somehow managed to misinterpret what I'm arguing, let me be clearer. You're making the point that there is some sort of "natural order", by which we all must or should behave, and that any behaviour outside the as-of-yet undefined boundary of that supposed order is unnatural. My point is that no such dichotomy (natural/unnatural) exists as far as human behaviour is concerned. The concept of a "natural order" is meaningless here, as are the distinctions implied by it. When I say there is no such thing as this "natural order" you've imagined, it should be more properly understood as a rejection of the natural/unnatural dichotomy you are attempting to invoke via your use of the term. If you want to bring the notion of what is and isn't natural into the debate, that's perfectly fine, but then all human behaviour must be inherently natural for the very reason that we are of nature. If there is such a thing as a "natural order", then part of that order is every possible thought or action that can be conceived by man, including homosexual desires and acts.

You don't tackle that at all in your response, whilst your odd "supporting" points a) and b) are extremely dubious if they are indeed genuine attempts to support an already-shaky claim rather than to obfuscate the matter with illogic and circular reasoning. They don't explain at all why anyone should think "men and women are biologically designed to be attracted to each other" (to the exclusion of all other possible types of attraction) and are question-begging more than anything. A bicycle is fundamentally different from a lava lamp; it doesn't mean the two things were designed to be attracted to each other. The supposition that men and women were designed with some purpose in mind is pretty fanciful stuff anyway; evolution isn't an intelligent director. And just because a man and woman can engage in intercourse to keep the human race going, it doesn't mean there is an obligation upon them to do so, does it? Or do we all have an obligation to engage in heterosexual rape as often as is physically possible in order to fulfill our "natural" duty? Your position is severely problematic if brought to it's logical conclusion. There are even other means besides heterosexual intercourse of contributing to the general survival of our species. I mean, are you saying that all activities besides heterosexual intercourse are unnatural because you think they aren't contributing to keeping the human race going or what exactly?

Even if this "natural order" you claim exists did indeed exist and various types of human conduct could indeed be categorised or distinguished into separate classifications of "natural" and "unnatural", you've still not satisfactorily explained why these distinctions are things that ought to instruct us as to how we as humans should behave or why we should necessarily assign significance, especially legal/moral, to such distinctions. Why should we assume that "natural" is good and "unnatural" is bad?


The majority of countries are completely intolerant of non-hetero practices, and in some cases, execute those found doing so. What the Russians have done barely registers by comparison, yet it's the big issue about the country in western media.

And those others are very much open to criticism too, but I guess this is the reality Russia has to live with, eh?


This thread is supposed to be about Russia, it's culture, it's identity, it's relations with it's neighbours, Chechnya, Ukraine, the fact that people are losing their lives everyday in massive numbers across the border, the oil/gas situation, and the knock on effects on the Russian/world economy, etc. There's a tonne of material there to work with.

Sadly, it's yet again hijacked by a pointless debate on the same sht issue that has killed a total of 0, for a country with frankly far more serious issues to deal with.

Just because you have an obvious distaste for homosexuals and this is a topic with which you clearly don't feel particularly comfortable, it doesn't mean it's a pointless non-issue or a case of the thread having been hi-jacked. We're discussing an aspect of Russian culture and law. Russia's relationship with the West also comes into it.

If you want to discuss the other issues that you'd rather prioritise as well, nobody's stopping you.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Now back on topic.

The UN says that an average of 29 people are losing their lives in Eastern Ukraine every day. The toll has now passed 5,000. That's FIVE THOUSAND people, many of whom are innocent victims, who just wanted a normal life, under a government (either Ukraine or Russia) able to guarantee their security and freedom to go about their daily business as they wish.

As I don't believe the West influenced the Kiev uprising, I don't believe the conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk is being orchestrated by Moscow. It's as accurate as saying that the Irish government was responsible for atrocities in Britain during the troubles, which was never the case.

20 people were shot in Paris recently. There was rolling coverage of the events for several days, and many world leaders showed up to be seen in Paris, some of them with at best, questionable approaches to the notion of free speech. By contrast, 30 people were slaughtered in Mariupol at the weekend, 80 were injured. There was no outpourings of sympathy for them and Europe's media were more interested in an election in Greece with a toll of 0.

Priorities, priorities.

My first post on footie in 2015. First I agree with you it's shocking how little interest there is in our media in this conflict.

I also partially agree with the bit of your post I've in bold. I don't believe either that Moscow is orchestrating the conflict in Donetsk or Luhansk -but I do believe they're supplementing it with men and equipment.
There is a swelling body of evidence that they are allowing military personnel to take gear and literally sign themselves out and head across the border for a bit of proper rough stuff. They've even accepted publically that soldiers are going there but claim they can't stop it happening. That is scandalous and an abdication of their responsibilities as commanders of their own armed forces.

They then became victims, and I use the word victims perversley -perhaps 'authors' would be better, of unintended consequence when some of these drunken dopes shot down an airliner full of holiday-makers -and their pitiful response, rather than admit it had all gotten out of hand, was to start cooking up cocknbull stories (supported by tragically poor photoshopping) about Ukrainian airforce jets being responsible.

[Spudulika]

Thank you Lionel for bringing the thread back on topic. Over the weekend fighting intensified between Luhansk and Donetsk with dozens killed. The border issue is growing and I can bet there is a lot of money being made in that area right now. A flood of Moscow money came south (mainly in Belgorod and Rostov) for helping refugees, but mostly went into pockets of carpetbaggers and other scumbags. There is a massive problem for victims of the fighting (both sides) as it seems Moscow and Kiev are content to let things bubble on while both are looking to gain a moral high ground.

I'm not convinced by soldiers signing themselves out, some of this was bandied about in the Summer with "holidaymakers" landing in the middle of the conflict. At the same time BBC were caught making eejits of themselves by reporting there were military convoys headed to the border, when in fact they were aid convoys. I know they were aid convoys as I both saw them pass through and by Voronezh and also met them coming back when many trucks carried refugees. The BBC had trucks opened to them when they were at the border and when they were shown to contain food and humanitarian supplies, suddenly the story went elsewhere.

There are many truths to the conflict, the majority we won't know about for another few years. The only thing that is certain is this, people at the top on all sides are making out like bandits - from those playing the currency game to those ensuring Russian only products on shelves, to border bootleggers to unscrupulous scum who are taking premiums from governments to provide aid for refugees and creaming it.

[Mr A]

The truth being at least somewhat unclear is something Russia relies on. I don't trust a word that comes from the Putin regime. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31020283

[Spudulika]

The truth being at least somewhat unclear is something Russia relies on. I don't trust a word that comes from the Putin regime. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31020283

I agree, 100%, neither do I trust what comes from Obama, Cameron and Co. Nobody has clean hands in this, and the BBC have proved themselves to be little more than mouthpieces for who pays them. The first sentence in article is a complete lie - and sets the tone for the propaganda war. Unlike Kosovo, there was a vote in Crimea (which was only going to go one way with the % of native Russians who have been agitating for years to return to Russia and the large number of Crimean Tatars who were refused their rights by Kiev).

Do you think that ANY media outfit worth its salt would be fooled by this? They were able to report minutae from space and call it fact to prove what they wanted. It is all about the economy, about people making money, and the people left homeless or lifeless are just collateral damage.

[DannyInvincible]

I agree, 100%, neither do I trust what comes from Obama, Cameron and Co. Nobody has clean hands in this, and the BBC have proved themselves to be little more than mouthpieces for who pays them. The first sentence in article is a complete lie - and sets the tone for the propaganda war.

I think the general rule is: don't trust anyone pulling the strings of power anywhere to shed any light on what they're really getting up to. :)

I think the Western powers are simply more adept and sophisticated in terms of covering up or "justifying" to their public their more suspect activities. Or that is certainly the case within the West anyway, where the mainstream media appears happy to play the role of establishment lap-dog (http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda). The Litvinenko case has been getting a lot of exposure in the UK today, but maybe the same applies in reverse and it's not something to which the Russian media will devote much air-time for obvious reasons? Then that BBC piece Mr A links to above, for example, mentions rather ominously in its opening paragraph how what's happening in Crimea has been "a textbook case of the Russian practice of military deception", almost as if to suggest deception is a uniquely Russian military practice that even has its own name in Russian and everything ("maskirovka") because, y'know, it's just so Russian and alien and everything... :rolleyes:

Something both myself and my girlfriend had noticed independently of one another is that the BBC's coverage of late generally has been of an anti-Russian nature. Maybe I shouldn't have been all that surprised, but it was just something that struck me. Certainly, any time Russia is included in the BBC's agenda for the day, it'll be a negative story (the fallen former power, suspected corruption, military aggression, a struggling economy...) or some "no good" that Putin's been up to. I used to think the BBC was a pretty trustworthy and neutral source, but I embarrassedly laugh at such naïveté now. Switching through the BBC, Russia Today and Al-Jazeera news channels one after the other can often provide a very interesting panoptic-style view of what's going on (at the very least, in terms of what we are being told by mainstream outlets and how we are being told) as the particular agenda of each channel will become slightly more apparent in contrast to the visibly-varying tack of the others.

This a short documentary piece by Adam Curtis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis) (who has worked closely with the BBC throughout his career) called 'Non-Linear Warfare by Media - A New System of Political Control' and featured in misanthropic satirist Charlie Brooker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brooker)'s 2014 Wipe:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOY4Ka-GBus

I was pleasantly surprised to see something so seemingly radical and incendiary on the BBC for it is critical of Western power at its very core and the manipulation of the public consciousness by those in possession of that power. Anyway, its relevance to this discussion is to be found in its reference of the behind-the-scenes work of "political architect" Vladislav Surkov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov) on behalf of Putin as some sort original inspiration for those presently in power and shaping/guiding democracy in the UK. Whether that latter suggestion is completely true or not, I'm not sure - probably not as I'd imagine this sort of non-linear portrayal of affairs is something Western elites and their media have been using for a long time - but I'd be interested in hearing what you made of it, Spud?


So much of the news this year has been hopeless, depressing, and above all, confusing. To which the only response is to say, "oh dear."

What this film is going to suggest is that that defeatist response has become a central part of a new system of political control. And to understand how this is happening, you have to look to Russia, to a man called Vladislav Surkov, who is a hero of our time.

Surkov is one of President Putin's advisers, and has helped him maintain his power for 15 years, but he has done it in a very new way.

He came originally from the avant-garde art world, and those who have studied his career, say that what Surkov has done, is to import ideas from conceptual art into the very heart of politics.

His aim is to undermine peoples' perceptions of the world, so they never know what is really happening.

Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly changing piece of theater. He sponsored all kinds of groups, from neo-Nazi skinheads to liberal human rights groups. He even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin.

But the key thing was, that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake. As one journalist put it: "It is a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused."

A ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it is undefinable. It is exactly what Surkov is alleged to have done in the Ukraine this year. In typical fashion, as the war began, Surkov published a short story about something he called non-linear war. A war where you never know what the enemy are really up to, or even who they are. The underlying aim, Surkov says, is not to win the war, but to use the conflict to create a constant state of destabilized perception, in order to manage and control.

But maybe, we have something similar emerging here in Britain. Everything we're told by journalists and politicians is confusing and contradictory. Of course, there is no Mr. Surkov in charge, but it is an odd, non-linear world that plays into the hands of those in power.

British troops have come home from Afghanistan, but nobody seems to know whether it was a victory or whether it was a defeat.

Aging disk jockeys are prosecuted for crimes they committed decades ago, while practically no one in the City of London is prosecuted for the endless financial crimes that have been revealed there.

In Syria, we are told that President Assad is the evil enemy, but then his enemies turn out to be even more evil than him, so we bomb them, and by doing that, we help keep Assad in power.

But the real epicenter of this non-linear world is the economy, and the closest we have to our own shape-shifting post-modern politician is [U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer] George Osborne.

He tells us proudly that the economy is growing, but at the same time, wages are going down.

He says he is reducing the deficit, but then it is revealed that the deficit is going up.

But the dark heart of this shape-shifting world is Quantitative Easing. The government is insisting on taking billions of Pounds out of the economy through its austerity program, yet at the very same time it is pumping billion of Pounds into the economy through Quantitative Easing, the equivalent of 24,000 Pounds for every family in Britain.

But it gets even more confusing, because the Bank of England has admitted that those billions of Pounds are not going where they are supposed to. A vast majority of that money has actually found its way into the hands of the wealthiest five percent in Britain. It has been described as the biggest transfer of wealth to the rich in recent documented history.

It could be a huge scandal, comparable to the greedy oligarchs in Russia. A ruthless elite, siphoning off billions in public money. But nobody seems to know.

It sums up the strange mood of our time, where nothing really makes any coherent sense. We live with a constant vaudeville of contradictory stories that makes it impossible for any real opposition to emerge, because they can't counter it with any coherent narrative of their own.

And it means that we as individuals become ever more powerless, unable to challenge anything, because we live a state of confusion and uncertainty. To which the response is: Oh dear. But that is what they want you to say.

[mypost]

That proverb doesn't quite apply to gay Russians who suffer discrimination in Russia as a result of their sexuality though, does it? They are born into Russian culture and are part of it. They are products of Russian society. They are Russian citizens with voices.

Are you OK then with what you view as the discrimination of the "undocumented Irish" in the US? Why even bring it up, as if it was something with which you were taking issue?

Does the idea of a tyranny of the majority under which minority rights are of little or no concern appeal to you?

Yes it does apply.

I didn't offer any opinion on what happens with the undocumented Irish. What I have said is, wherever you are in the world, you have to live by the laws and respect the culture of the country you are in. It doesn't matter whether you think they are tyrannical or not, you still have to comply with them, be it either as a tourist or a resident. If you refuse to do so, you're on your own.


But are priests, like those who engage in homosexual acts, defying your supposed "natural order" because they don't engage in intercourse with the opposite sex?

They're defying nothing. They have made a choice to be in the Catholic priesthood. They understand the sacrifices that result from making that choice.


A bicycle is fundamentally different from a lava lamp; it doesn't mean the two things were designed to be attracted to each other.

Neither are living beings. Therefore the examples above are obsolete.


And just because a man and woman can engage in intercourse to keep the human race going, it doesn't mean there is an obligation upon them to do so, does it? Or do we all have an obligation to engage in heterosexual r*** as often as is physically possible in order to fulfill our "natural" duty? Your position is severely problematic if brought to it's logical conclusion.

None of my "conclusions" involve nor condone the committing of extreme criminal offences. There's nothing natural about it. Committing such a crime is a choice made, and a choice that should be punished in the strongest terms.


We're discussing an aspect of Russian culture and law. Russia's relationship with the West also comes into it.

We're discussing one aspect of Russian law, and one of the ones they're least bothered about. Russia frankly doesn't care what the west thinks of this issue, and is certainly not going to allow the west to tell them how to live their lives. That's their culture regarding it, (it's also shared by Ukrainian people), and whether you agree with it or not, you have to respect it.

[mypost]

My first post on footie in 2015. First I agree with you it's shocking how little interest there is in our media in this conflict.

I also partially agree with the bit of your post I've in bold. I don't believe either that Moscow is orchestrating the conflict in Donetsk or Luhansk -but I do believe they're supplementing it with men and equipment.
There is a swelling body of evidence that they are allowing military personnel to take gear and literally sign themselves out and head across the border for a bit of proper rough stuff. They've even accepted publically that soldiers are going there but claim they can't stop it happening. That is scandalous and an abdication of their responsibilities as commanders of their own armed forces.

What responsibilities are these?

The Russian rebels are mainly volunteers from the Russian army. Some of them have served their country in previous conflicts, so they are well trained and equipped to fight, and are showing that superiority atm.

By contrast, this is all new to the Ukrainian army and they're struggling to cope. They gave up Crimea without a fight. The West isn't really interested in helping them, but prefers to impose sanctions on Russia, which the government there basically laughs at, and just carries on regardless.

Ukrainian people are determined that the East should not be surrendered, while Russia sees it, (and Ukraine in general) like a long lost brother that needs to be brought into line. With neither side willing to budge an inch in their position, they just continue fighting and more lives are lost.

As I said, the west isn't really interested in helping the Ukrainians, and has let them down badly. In Ireland, media coverage has been a joke and senior Irish politicians barely make any comment. At the time of the Maidan massacre, our politicians were more concerned about GSOC. How many people lost their lives from it?

One of the reasons given to explain it is that it's "too far away" to affect us. So are Israel-Palestine conflicts too, but that doesn't prevent rolling news coverage of them. Ukraine and Russia are in Europe, Israel is not. Now which one should get more airtime?

[DannyInvincible]

I didn't offer any opinion on what happens with the undocumented Irish. What I have said is, wherever you are in the world, you have to live by the laws and respect the culture of the country you are in. It doesn't matter whether you think they are tyrannical or not, you still have to comply with them, be it either as a tourist or a resident. If you refuse to do so, you're on your own.

OK, should I correctly interpret this passage and the prior discussion on discrimination suffered by homosexuals then as an outlining of what you feel is the practical reality rather than as a casting of judgment or the dispensing of moral advice?

Why did you even bring up the undocumented Irish then, if not to imply the offering of some sympathetic opinion on their plight, or, worse, if not as some sort of unnecessarily pedantic red herring to distract from Peadar's questions (many of which you've still not answered, in case you forgot...)?


They're defying nothing. They have made a choice to be in the Catholic priesthood. They understand the sacrifices that result from making that choice.

I'm sure they do, but the sacrifices are voluntary and self-imposed. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend their choice will see them suffer the same sort of social marginalisation and legal discrimination that homosexuals have imposed upon them by both states and private individuals for doing (or wanting to do) what comes most naturally to them at absolutely no harm whatsoever to other consenting adults.

Anyway, you'll have to do better than simply re-state that they're "defying nothing"; doesn't your supposed "natural order" demand that all men (including priests, I would think; they are men too, after all) be attracted to women and reproduce with them to keep the human race going? You've been arguing that anyone who doesn't engage in heterosexual sex is behaving in an unnatural manner, no? Why does this supposed rule apply to homosexuals but not to priests? Nobody is duty-bound to reproduce, whether they wish to engage in what we define as sexual activity or not.


Neither are living beings. Therefore the examples above are obsolete.

I don't see why that has to be so. You'll really have to explain to me better why it should be assumed that things that are fundamentally different must have been designed to be attracted to one another. I don't believe we, as evolved beings, have been designed with some purpose or function in the mind of an intelligent designer - indeed, the great body of evidence supports the theory of evolution at the fatal expense of the notion of intelligent design - but, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (even though you've not remotely substantiated your claim) and let's consider living beings only then, if you'd like me to entertain your arbitrary distinction; a horse and a man are more fundamentally different than a woman and a man are fundamentally different. Have horses and men too been designed to be attracted to one another? Or ought they be more attracted even to one another than a woman and a man ought to be?

Or is your argument that things that are fundamentally different and capable of reproduction must have been designed to be attracted to one another? That those two qualities in their combination are proof of something? If so, that begs further questions, but, for now, what of humans who are born infertile or those who are born displaying non-artificially-occurring hermaphroditism? To what "natural order" should they adhere? What have they been designed to do?

Are you arguing that all men ought to be attracted to all women (and vice versa) as you see them as fundamentally different and capable of reproduction? If not, why don't you apply your supposed "natural order" to all people rather than just homosexuals? You'll presumably allow for heterosexuals to discriminate on the basis of their sexuality and desires; why not allow for homosexuals to do the same?

Out of interest, what is your opinion on the nature of tri-parental babies? They're "unnatural beings", I assume?...

Even if it was factual that some men and women have been designed to be attracted to one another, why ought that instruct human behaviour, laws and morality generally? And just because one might be able to reproduce, it doesn't mean one has to, does it? Our nature renders us capable of many things (even things we consider immoral), but that doesn't obligate us to do anything. If a human simply has no interest in or no instinctive urge for reproduction, isn't that entirely natural and acceptable? If such a human also wants to seek pleasure in their life by engaging in activities that do not lead to reproduction (be that playing football, riding a bicycle, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, dancing, engaging in purely recreational heterosexual activities, engaging in homosexual activities, whatever...) why must some of those acts be distinguished from the others as unnatural/wrong? Indeed, what and where are your lines of distinction?

Anyway, more importantly, you're cherry-picking and dodging quite a few of the more crucial points I've made. For one, how do you account for homosexual behaviour documented in hundreds of other living species besides humans if you think homosexual behaviour cannot be naturally-occurring?


None of my "conclusions" involve nor condone the committing of extreme criminal offences. There's nothing natural about it.

But don't they? How do you make that natural/unnatural distinction then in this case exactly? Or are you now accepting that we don't have a "natural obligation" to reproduce, after all?


We're discussing one aspect of Russian law, and one of the ones they're least bothered about. Russia frankly doesn't care what the west thinks of this issue, and is certainly not going to allow the west to tell them how to live their lives.

The entirety of Russia is not orthodox in its thought. There are a significant number of Russians for whom you don't speak and who are very much bothered by this issue. As you say, they are a diverse culture. You were celebrating Russia's wonder and complexity up-thread and advising that we Irish should try and understand it better, but you appear to have little time for all of its complexity. You don't particularly strike me as wanting to understand the complexity yourself.

[Spudulika]

I think the general rule is: don't trust anyone pulling the strings of power anywhere to shed any light on what they're really getting up to. :)

I think the Western powers are simply more adept and sophisticated in terms of covering up or "justifying" to their public their more suspect activities. Or that is certainly the case within the West anyway, where the mainstream media appears happy to play the role of establishment lap-dog (http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda). The Litvinenko case has been getting a lot of exposure in the UK today, but maybe the same applies in reverse and it's not something to which the Russian media will devote much air-time for obvious reasons? Then that BBC piece Mr A links to above, for example, mentions rather ominously in its opening paragraph how what's happening in Crimea has been "a textbook case of the Russian practice of military deception", almost as if to suggest deception is a uniquely Russian military practice that even has its own name in Russian and everything ("maskirovka") because, y'know, it's just so Russian and alien and everything... :rolleyes:

Something both myself and my girlfriend had noticed independently of one another is that the BBC's coverage of late generally has been of an anti-Russian nature. Maybe I shouldn't have been all that surprised, but it was just something that struck me. Certainly, any time Russia is included in the BBC's agenda for the day, it'll be a negative story (the fallen former power, suspected corruption, military aggression, a struggling economy...) or some "no good" that Putin's been up to. I used to think the BBC was a pretty trustworthy and neutral source, but I embarrassedly laugh at such naïveté now. Switching through the BBC, Russia Today and Al-Jazeera news channels one after the other can often provide a very interesting panoptic-style view of what's going on (at the very least, in terms of what we are being told by mainstream outlets and how we are being told) as the particular agenda of each channel will become slightly more apparent in contrast to the visibly-varying tack of the others.

This a short documentary piece by Adam Curtis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis) (who has worked closely with the BBC throughout his career) called 'Non-Linear Warfare by Media - A New System of Political Control' and featured in misanthropic satirist Charlie Brooker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brooker)'s 2014 Wipe:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOY4Ka-GBus

I was pleasantly surprised to see something so seemingly radical and incendiary on the BBC for it is critical of Western power at its very core and the manipulation of the public consciousness by those in possession of that power. Anyway, its relevance to this discussion is to be found in its reference of the behind-the-scenes work of "political architect" Vladislav Surkov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov) on behalf of Putin as some sort original inspiration for those presently in power and shaping/guiding democracy in the UK. Whether that latter suggestion is completely true or not, I'm not sure - probably not as I'd imagine this sort of non-linear portrayal of affairs is something Western elites and their media have been using for a long time - but I'd be interested in hearing what you made of it, Spud?

The viewing is uncomfortable and while I know Surkov is quite the shaker, he is US trained and leads Ketchum in Russia (the US PR agency who advise the Kremlin). The very odd aspect of all the Russians who have been put on the "blacklist" - is that not one is from the inner circle of the Kremlin (St Petes Mob) and all I have seen, bar 4, have fallen out with the authorities here. Nobody of any worth is on the blacklist and main Russian companies already have their assets offshore (Cyprus and Ireland mainly) so they're okay.

I think it's quite the trip to go from RTE to BBC to RT to Fox to CNN and Al Jazeera and see how a single news item is reported. RT is terrible (sadly I've had to collaborate with them at times and I felt dirty), but BBC has become so woeful (I am glad that 2 more people in Ireland see this as I thought it was just me). They skew facts, report breathlessly and while it is right to hammer Russia for certain things, they are not consistent.

Thanks a million for the Curtis update, really want to see this linear warfare docu!

[DannyInvincible]

Thanks a million for the Curtis update, really want to see this linear warfare docu!

Bitter Lake (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake) is on iPlayer at the minute, if you are able to view it from where you are. (If not, give Hola (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hola-better-internet/gkojfkhlekighikafcpjkiklfbnlmeio?hl=en) a try on Google Chrome.)


Politicians used to have the confidence to tell us stories that made sense of the chaos of world events. But now there are no big stories and politicians react randomly to every new crisis - leaving us bewildered and disorientated.

Bitter Lake is a new, adventurous and epic film by Adam Curtis that explains why the big stories that politicians tell us have become so simplified that we can’t really see the world any longer.

The narrative goes all over the world, America, Britain, Russia and Saudi Arabia - but the country at the heart of it is Afghanistan. Because Afghanistan is the place that has confronted our politicians with the terrible truth - that they cannot understand what is going on any longer.

The film reveals the forces that over the past thirty years rose up and undermined the confidence of politics to understand the world. And it shows the strange, dark role that Saudi Arabia has played in this.

But Bitter Lake is also experimental. Curtis has taken the unedited rushes of everything that the BBC has ever shot in Afghanistan - and used them in new and radical ways.

He has tried to build a different and more emotional way of depicting what really happened in Afghanistan. A counterpoint to the thin, narrow and increasingly destructive stories told by those in power today.

Curtis' style is very unusual; it's mesmeric and spacey - almost nebulous - but effective.

[DannyInvincible]

Just some thoughts for Mypost on "biological design" before I knock off for the night...

You talk (without really substantiating your claims) of "biological design" as if to suggest that our human nature has purpose or some pre-defined function that, in turn, necessarily begets some behavioural "order" or correct way of being. Indeed, the process of evolution might appear to be teleological, but, as far as we can observe and in every practical sense, or for all intents and purposes, it is ateleological. As Ernst Mayr put it, adaptedness is a result of a process rather than goal-seeking. No serious evolutionary biologist thinks otherwise. When teleological-esque writing is used in modern biological literature, it is used simply for the sake of brevity. Even if one had to concede that evolution were somehow a teleological process with a purpose and an end-goal in sight, it would evidently be blindly so, thus rendering it effectively meaningless for us; there would be no intelligent meaning to be derived for the purpose of our debate from such a process behaving as if it were random, as evolution indeed does.

Regardless of all that, however, just because something is or can be a certain way, it doesn't mean that something ought to be a certain way.

Have you ever heard of the concept of exaptation or considered the notion that biological formations (be that arms, legs, flippers, mouths, sexual organs or whatever) can be used to do more than simply the one thing for which they might appear to our arbitrary judgments to be most compatible?

[Lionel Ritchie]

What responsibilities are these?

The Russian rebels are mainly volunteers from the Russian army. Some of them have served their country in previous conflicts, so they are well trained and equipped to fight, and are showing that superiority atm.

That's surely not a serious question? I can't think of many armies that allow their personnel sign out and worse take gear of any sort with them, let alone heavy gear like tanks and BUKs, to cross the border into another jurisdiction to become paramilitaries. Now I know there are volunteer divisions (more paramilitaries basically) fighting on the Ukrainian side as well but technically they're on their own sovereign territory and the Ukraine aren't being circumspect about their involvement.

So to answer your question the Russians have a responsibility to keep their men and inventory in order. They should be locking up and court-martialling any of their personnel who seek to move property of the Russian Armed Forces off Russian territory without orders to do so. Unless that is the Russians are fighting a proxy war and are treating these guys as some sort of half assed condor legion.

As for "well trained and equipped to fight" -it's a pity that not one of the estimated 13 individuals it would've taken to operate the BUK1 that brought down MH17 thought to grab so much as a pair of lidl binoculars when they were tooling themselves up for that days work.

[mypost]

OK, should I correctly interpret this passage and the prior discussion on discrimination suffered by homosexuals then as an outlining of what you feel is the practical reality rather than as a casting of judgment or the dispensing of moral advice?

Why did you even bring up the undocumented Irish then, if not to imply the offering of some sympathetic opinion on their plight, or, worse, if not as some sort of unnecessarily pedantic red herring to distract from Peadar's questions (many of which you've still not answered, in case you forgot...)?

I don't have to answer any of his questions tbh. However I brought up the undocumented issue to show that everybody suffers discrimination at some point of their lives. It may not always be personal, it may vary in degrees, but it does happen. As Billy Connolly once ranted on stage, white straight men are the only race of people you can say anything you like about, and there won't be a demonstration against it the next morning.


I'm sure they do, but the sacrifices are voluntary and self-imposed.

Yes. It's called a choice. It doesn't mean priests are not attracted to women. Other faiths recognise that, and so do not ban such relationships as the Catholic one does.


for doing (or wanting to do) what comes most naturally to them at absolutely no harm whatsoever to other consenting adults.

Oh really? Nigh on 200 countries do not allow them to marry. Many of them have zero tolerance of non-traditional relations. They don't do that for effect, you know.

I read recently that in one free, large, Catholic, apparantly liberal EU state, local society views non-straight relations as an "illness". I don't see Irish press, public, or politicians though screaming "discrimination" and telling them how to behave, as they tell the Russians. Indeed, thousands of Irish visit there every year.


You've been arguing that anyone who doesn't engage in heterosexual sex is behaving in an unnatural manner, no?

While there is no obligation for men and women to reproduce, my argument is that men and women are naturally attracted to each other, and those who decide not to have made a choice, and are therefore subject to the realities and consequences of that choice.


If such a human also wants to seek pleasure in their life by engaging in activities that do not lead to reproduction (be that playing football, riding a bike, dancing, drink alcohol) why must some of those acts be distinguished from the others as unnatural/wrong? Indeed, what and where are your lines of distinction?

The lines of distinction are what is human instinct, and what is choice. It is human instinct to crave food, drink water, seek shelter, and as adults to mate with partners of the opposite gender. It is a choice to do all in the quote above.


The entirety of Russia is not orthodox in its thought. There are a significant number of Russians for whom you don't speak and who are very much bothered by this issue.

Name them. There's nigh on 150 million to choose from. So if you think there is a "significant number", you probably have examples to hand.

I have visited Russia and Ukraine, have extensive contacts in both countries, and understand the differences between our lifestyle and theirs very well thank you. None of them are overly religious, but they all strongly believe in traditional relations and family values, so they have no issue with what to them is an insignificant piece of legislation.

[mypost]

I can't think of many armies that allow their personnel sign out and worse take gear of any sort with them, let alone heavy gear like tanks and BUKs, to cross the border into another jurisdiction to become paramilitaries. Now I know there are volunteer divisions (more paramilitaries basically) fighting on the Ukrainian side as well but technically they're on their own sovereign territory and the Ukraine aren't being circumspect about their involvement.

So to answer your question the Russians have a responsibility to keep their men and inventory in order. They should be locking up and court-martialling any of their personnel who seek to move property of the Russian Armed Forces off Russian territory without orders to do so. Unless that is the Russians are fighting a proxy war and are treating these guys as some sort of half assed condor legion.

The pro-Russian fighters in Ukraine are a volunteer army, and are fighting a conventional state-backed army. Not all members of the formal Russian army are currently on service, so are free to go about their business like anyone else, and some of them have gone to help defend their brothers across the border. It doesn't mean that Putin has ordered them to do so.


As for "well trained and equipped to fight" -it's a pity that not one of the estimated 13 individuals it would've taken to operate the BUK1 that brought down MH17 thought to grab so much as a pair of lidl binoculars when they were tooling themselves up for that days work.

Don't know what good binoculars would have done, the flight was well above the clouds. But they were launching missiles at what they viewed as "enemy" aircraft for several days in the run up to the Malaysian Airlines crash, and they had radar to track aircraft flying over the area. Believing that this was another aircraft out to get them, they launched their missile. As far as I know, they haven't launched any since.

The casualties though are still piling up. Negotiations are being held in a pro-Russian country though, and any peace agreement will be agreed on Russian terms. With the Yanks and NATO unwilling/unable to help, Ukraine really doesn't have much to bargain with, so they may just have to let Luhansk and Donetsk shape their own future.

[DannyInvincible]

I don't have to answer any of his questions tbh. However I brought up the undocumented issue to show that everybody suffers discrimination at some point of their lives. It may not always be personal, it may vary in degrees, but it does happen.

You're quite right; you don't have to entertain or convince anyone and it's probably not a bad thing that you're not being at all persuasive considering the veiled animus and disdain you're concealing behind the curtain of deflection and pseudo-impartiality. Regardless, I think it's intellectually bankrupt to so blatantly cheery-pick a convenient select few points with which to deal whilst ignoring to answer the more challenging ones. But that's just me...

Let's just admit it; it was an attempt to deflect from having to answer a question. We know discrimination happens. We were already addressing it. What was the relevance of the "undocumented Irish" exactly when Peadar's analogy did more than enough to help progress the discussion? Can we take it that the discrimination of minorities who intend no harm to others isn't really something that troubles you then? In fact, your comments might even suggest you positively approve of it in some cases?


As Billy Connolly once ranted on stage, white straight men are the only race of people you can say anything you like about, and there won't be a demonstration against it the next morning.

What was his point exactly? (Or your point even, assuming your interpretation and relaying of his idea is reliable?) Maybe I'm misinterpreting (as, from the limited amount I've seen of him, I've never particularly thought of Billy Connolly as being a mouthpiece for pro-establishment/patriarchal sentiment), but isn't that just a sanitised reformulation of those tired and hackneyed old refrains we hear from beneficiaries of privilege, sexists, racists, homophobes and apologists for the oppression and discrimination of minorities?: "How come they can slag us off but we're not allowed to slag them?"/"Don't you know there'd be uproar if the same thing was said about Muslims/blacks/gays/women!"/"It's political correctness gone mad!"

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you trying to suggest white straight men are above victimhood or, worse, trying to equate the "discrimination" of white straight men with the historical oppression of minorities, as if white straight men are voiceless/fair game in our society or as if there is nobody to come to their defence? Sure, don't they have the luxury to remain aloof; against what would the entitled, privileged, insulated and well-enfranchised have to demonstrate when they can so simply initiate legal proceedings to protect their good names and positions instead?


Yes. It's called a choice. It doesn't mean priests are not attracted to women.

It doesn't mean some priests are not attracted to men either, believe it or not: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/10/dublin-priest-gay-congregation-ovation

Anyway, going by your logic, mustn't you also be saying that a (hetersosexual-identifying) priest's choice, like the homosexual's choice, is an unnatural choice? That they're turning their back on women and reproduction, and therefore denying their nature? Because, according to you, homosexual men are actually attracted to women - no matter how much they deny it - and are behaving unnaturally and anti-instinctively in "choosing" (as if sexual desire could ever be a matter of choice) to turn their backs on women and reproduction. Why is the priest's rejection of his supposed nature considered natural and fine, but the homosexual's is not? If, whilst a priest might abstain from sexual activity, a homosexual wishes to instead do something else that his nature permits him to do - namely, engage in recreational sex with those of the same sex - that's a completely independent and separate matter. Then, what about abstinent homosexuals, for example; should they suffer discrimination too? They'd be doing no more sexually than a (committed) priest would.


Oh really? Nigh on 200 countries do not allow them to marry. Many of them have zero tolerance of non-traditional relations. They don't do that for effect, you know.

By the sounds of it, you seem to have an idea formulated in your head of some societal harm that such relationships cause. Please fill me in on what you're alluding to; why do these countries do it?

Out of interest, were you aware that marriages between men occurred during the early Roman Empire?


I read recently that in one free, large, Catholic, apparantly liberal EU state, local society views non-straight relations as an "illness". I don't see Irish press, public, or politicians though screaming "discrimination" and telling them how to behave, as they tell the Russians. Indeed, thousands of Irish visit there every year.

Juicy stuff... To where are you referring? And where did you read this? If what you say is true, I would have no reservations in condemning such ignorant attitudes. Regardless, homophobia elsewhere doesn't exonerate Russia, about whom we're having a discussion here, before you slip off again whilst accusing others of taking things off-topic.


While there is no obligation for men and women to reproduce, my argument is that men and women are naturally attracted to each other, and those who decide not to have made a choice, and are therefore subject to the realities and consequences of that choice.

Your position is little more than homophobia masquerading as pseudo-science, at its very best. As if you're no more than objectively observing from above and commenting upon some reality you perceive to exist... Drop the charade. You sympathise with those subjecting homosexuals to these "realities and consequences", do you not? Who says they have to be the "reality and consequences"? At least have the moral courage and integrity to defend what is clearly also your personal stance, rather than vaguely side-stepping and continually passing the buck to conservative society at large, as if it is only conservative society at large and not yourself that has some issue with certain people's private choices or with what homosexuals get up to. Isn't your own stance an element of these "realities and consequences" too?

If you're saying there's no obligation upon anyone to reproduce (that is to admit that it's not about some notion of "common good"; that the survival of our species is no longer a concern for consideration in this debate), then why on earth should the the reproductive habits and sexuality of private individuals cause need for your concern or wider discrimination?

You've not satisfactorily explained why we should just assume that men and women are naturally attracted to each other either (with all other types of attraction assumed unnatural). How can someone decide not to be naturally attracted to someone anyway? That idea doesn't even make sense. Even if it was the case that men and women were naturally attracted to one another with no room in your "natural order" for any alternative forms of attraction, what is it to you anyway if people are interested in other forms of "unnatural" attraction at no harm to you? What difference does it make exactly?

It's not even the case that all men and all women are attracted to all women and all men, respectively, anyway. As a man, are you attracted to all women? Doesn't the fact that you're obviously not demonstrate how daft, simplistic and generally-inapplicable your all-encompassing assertion is?

You disapprove of the acceptance of homosexuals and approve of majority Russian attitudes, allegedly because "that's the reality", but can you accept that modern Irish society is changing and tolerate the place of homosexuals in it? That is the societal reality in Ireland now, but you don't seem to like it one bit.

[DannyInvincible]

The lines of distinction are what is human instinct, and what is choice. It is human instinct to crave food, drink water, seek shelter, and as adults to mate with partners of the opposite gender. It is a choice to do all in the quote above.

But those clearly aren't the lines of distinction, unless you also approve of the discrimination of footballers, cyclists, dancers and drinkers. From where does the supposed moral distinction arise between what you say is human instinct and some of what you say are choices? Even if homosexual attraction wasn't instinctive and was a matter of choice (it quite obviously isn't a matter of choice), there are clearly plenty of recreational things we can choose to do that are accepted by society as just fine; just because something is a choice rather than instinctive doesn't automatically render it less virtuous than something else. In fact, humans often congratulate themselves and celebrate the supposed uniqueness or virtue of being able to make choices over acting on instincts. Why should engaging in a recreational homosexual act warrant discrimination when engaging in a recreational heterosexual act will not, for example? The object of neither is to reproduce. Can't homosexual intercourse possibly serve basic emotional needs and instincts for those who wish to engage in it?

Out of interest, would you describe sexual arousal as an instinctive state or as a choice? How do you imagine homosexual men engage in intercourse? By imagining women whilst doing it, is it?...

How do you know what is and isn't human instinct or what is and isn't choice for all human beings anyway? We all have urges to do things, even beyond what we need to do to simply survive, but what is particularly human is having the ability to choose whether or not to act on those urges, so if you're going to say homosexuality is a choice, then you might as well say the same about eating. The hunger-striker can choose not to eat, for example, or the dieter. There's no necessary moral obligation to eat and to eat only, or to survive even. Generally, we choose to eat because we find it pleasurable, just as we do many other things because we also find them pleasurable. It's the finding of these things pleasurable that we can't choose. Maslow might have drawn up his hierarchy of human needs (although even that is often criticised as being far too simplistic an analysis of human agency and endeavour), but such a hierarchy provides no moral instruction as to how we ought to behave.

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we have to do something, nor does it necessarily mean we have to abstain from something else. You have a very limited and myopic outlook on the possible scope of human initiative, invention, ingenuity and imagination. It's rather bleak; a stubborn unwillingness to even comprehend that there might be an "outside the box". You erect arbitrary, wishy-washy boundaries for which you can't even provide satisfactory or consistent definition, yet you pledge some sort of odd obedience to the confusion they represent.


Name them. There's nigh on 150 million to choose from. So if you think there is a "significant number", you probably have examples to hand.

Nikolai Alekseev, Nikolai Baev, Irina Fet, Irina Shipitko, Dmitri Bartenev, Igor Kochetkov, Liya Kirgetova, Elena Novozhilova, Olga Krauze, Tatiana Puchko, Lena Katina, Dima Bilan, Philipp Kirkorov, Nikolai Baskov; groups such as Pussy Riot and Kolibri; organisations such as Gay Russia and the Russian LGBT Network... 14 per cent of the population support same-sex unions; that's 20 million people.


I have visited Russia and Ukraine, have extensive contacts in both countries, and understand the differences between our lifestyle and theirs very well thank you. None of them are overly religious, but they all strongly believe in traditional relations and family values, so they have no issue with what to them is an insignificant piece of legislation.

Well, of course it's insignificant to them; they're not the suffering minority. Why would caring about LGBT rights ever be a pressing concern for them?

[peadar1987]

Mypost, if you think that naturally straight people can just choose to be attracted to men, then you are probably bi.

[Spudulika]

Mypost, if you think that naturally straight people can just choose to be attracted to men, then you are probably bi.

Explain lovers of Ladyboys please? I'm not one, but I saw a docu-film about it on Channel 4 years ago and just switched off after 10 minutes. Maybe I was just afraid!

[Spudulika]

Onto some real news. Our Ambassador was down for a visit this week. Today he was at the State University to deliver a talk, really good one on the history of Ireland and some nice facts and figures. There was a q and a session after. 5 of 5 gobdaws who jumped up with the microphone asked about Ukraine and went off on monologues and crap that was so far removed from reality that it was embarassing. One eejit, a journalist from Lipetsk but lying about being a refugee from Donbass, went on about press freedom being restricted in Ukraine. I wanted to slap his head and ask why he hasn't defended colleagues in RUSSIA who have been attacked or killed (either for reporting the truth or failing to write the articles they were paid for).

Now the situation in Ukraine is dragging on, the stupid threats are going to grow and there is an increase in the flood of refugees from Donbass into Russia that is not being reported in Russia (save some independent sources) and the BBC and other mouthpieces are gone silent. Many people are genuinely afraid of retribution and what is coming next. Not inspired by any of the sides.

Last night at dinner the ambassador asked, the only way we can stop it is by taking away the weapons. I got some odd looks when I said - the only way to stop it is to take out the leaders making money from this and quickly put more reliable people in their places. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot see the current "rebel" lot wanting to be truly peaceful and Poroshenko is not long for office if the fighting does stop.