Big Bad Bears - Russia and Putin

[Charlie Darwin]

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!
People who love ladyboys are not 100% straight, if such a thing even exists.

[mypost]

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.

You can choose not to eat. That does not stop your system from craving food. Eating food may or may not be pleasurable, it's often mundane, but it is essential to sustain life.


14 per cent of the population support same-sex unions; that's 20 million people.

So according to your figures, 86% of Russians are straight people, and don't care two hoots about what the west is enraged about. That's more than 4 in every 5 people. I think that settles the "very many" argument tbh.


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 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...

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but 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.

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, 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.

According to what? As I said quite some time ago, the social reality in Ireland on the issue is that people accept it more now than they used to, as long as it doesn't directly affect them. I believe that's largely to do with an unquestioning media who have told us that there's nothing wrong with it. However when Ireland's Minister for Health made his declaration on air earlier this year, it was front page news, on every news, chat, and current affairs shows on all networks for 48 hours, (declared on the same day as obviously less important news such as two killed in a Midlands car crash) and it was the talking point across the nation. If there was nothing wrong with it, it would not be on Page 21, let alone Page 1. While the vast majority of parents still want a traditional family, don't want their offspring to be different and be therefore subject to a lifetime of comment and firefighting. You may not accept that, and that is your right, but that is the reality. For all the so-called acceptance, if it's on your own doorstep, self interest kicks in. Hence why the Russians have their law, and 86% of the population support it.

As you may have gathered, I did not identify the nationality concerned. That will remain the case. I read it recently in a national newspaper, there are no online links available. But as you clearly hate discrimination, may I move on to a bigger discrimination issue in Russia, and that is racism. Now if I ask you where you stand, you'll state the obvious answer. In that case, I ask would you actively seek a relationship with a opposite gender person of different nationality/colour, and if not, why not? Yet you'll still condemn Russia as a racist, homophobic shthole.

On priests, they have not decided to turn their back on women. They have joined the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not allow men and women to form relationships. They are the rules, if they were not rules, priests could and would have relationships with women.

You have asked many questions in this thread. I can't answer them all, nor do I have to. I don't do logic, what I do is tell you how things are, rather than what people want them to be. If the questions I do answer are not explained "satisfactorily" enough for you, that's life. No matter how I respond, I can't make you like the answer.


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

Apologies, but the above quote had to be edited. Mainly because the edited part is a load of rubbish.

[peadar1987]

You can choose not to eat. That does not stop your system from craving food. Eating food may or may not be pleasurable, it's often mundane, but it is essential to sustain life.

And that doesn't mean it's morally wrong to go without eating if you so choose.




So according to your figures, 86% of Russians are straight people, and don't care two hoots about what the west is enraged about. That's more than 4 in every 5 people. I think that settles the "very many" argument tbh.

And brings us conveniently back to my point you previously ignored. If 86% of Britons were non-catholic, would it be okay if Britain as a nation systematically discriminated against catholics? A simple yes or no.



Apologies, but the above quote had to be edited. Mainly because the edited part is a load of rubbish.
Why is it a load of rubbish, exactly? You apparently think homosexuality is a choice. Could you just decide to be gay? If the answer is no, then what evidence do you have for it being a choice? If it is yes, then you are bi, by definition.

[DannyInvincible]

You can choose not to eat. That does not stop your system from craving food. Eating food may or may not be pleasurable, it's often mundane, but it is essential to sustain life.

Spiritual or religious fasters who practice mind over matter might even disagree with you (on the craving assertion), but what does all this mean anyway? Of what moral significance or consequence is it? Would any of the above morally compel us to behave in a certain way? Are you saying that what you consider instinctive is natural and therefore right, whereas what you consider to be choice is unnatural and therefore wrong? You can't be saying that though, because if that's what you believe to be the case then you'll also disapprove (to go back to previous examples) of footballers, cyclists, dancers and drinkers, no? If you don't, why is what they do OK to you, but then you find the life of a homosexual worthy of disdain? Where's the moral distinction between these various emotional/recreational activities for you? Heterosexual sex isn't even essential to sustain one's life anyway. And I refer to "one's life" in the singular because you've already acknowledged that there is no moral obligation to sustain life generally through reproduction and continuation of our species.

Many humans crave things like alcohol and drugs. Do you advocate the intake of such substances as morally essential then? Do you propose that we give in to our urges in order to be acting in a morally right manner? Is it unnatural for a human to suppress, say, an urge to kill?


So according to your figures, 86% of Russians are straight people, and don't care two hoots about what the west is enraged about. That's more than 4 in every 5 people. I think that settles the "very many" argument tbh.

I thought you believed all Russians were straight people with a small homosexual-identifying minority in denial of their natural heterosexuality choosing to behave "differently"?

And you don't think 20 million people is a significant number of people? Ah now. Seriously? :bulgy:


...as long as it doesn't directly affect them.

I think more and more people are simply accepting it; their acceptance isn't conditional upon this added perverse and innuendo-laden notion of "so long as it doesn't directly affect me" because most reasonable people realise that homosexuality isn't some sort of intrusive or aggressive threat to them or their way of life that they need to fear and guard against. What exactly are you trying to insinuate homosexuals do? How do you envisage homosexuality "directly affecting" non-homosexual-identifying people exactly so that it might erode the sympathy of the majority or necessitate heterosexual-identifying people to make such a daft qualification? How might it realistically "directly affect" the likes of yourself? Gay people, by and large, try to get on with their own private lives and business without encroaching upon the rights of others, just like any other decent citizen.


I believe that's largely to do with an unquestioning media who have told us that there's nothing wrong with it.

What is wrong with it though? You're really skirting around that very crucial question with a lot of wishy-washy nonsense. What's the harm to you and your kin? Why do you personally feel threatened by it?


As you may have gathered, I did not identify the nationality concerned. That will remain the case.

Why's it such a big secret? You seemed to take issue with the notion that the Irish press, public and politicians weren't simultaneously condemning the attitudes of this country, but how can anyone condemn them and their attitudes if we don't know who you're talking about? Sure why not reveal all so that we can scream "discrimination"?


I read it recently in a national newspaper, there are no online links available.

That's convenient, but there's bound to be a reference to this curious claim online somewhere, surely?


But as you clearly hate discrimination, may I move on to a bigger discrimination issue in Russia, and that is racism. Now if I ask you where you stand, you'll state the obvious answer. In that case, I ask would you actively seek a relationship with a opposite gender person of different nationality/colour, and if not, why not? Yet you'll still condemn Russia as a racist, homophobic shthole.

To suggest I'm condemning Russia as a "racist, homophobic sh*thole" is a ridiculous oversimplification of my communications with you and a total misrepresentation.

Anyway, let's not jump to conclusions. You're only showing your sorry xenophobic/racist self up now. If you automatically assume that I and others would have a problem with being in a relationship with "a [sic] opposite gender person of different nationality/colour", I'm afraid you're letting your own mask slip and betraying your own prejudices. It's pretty apparent this would be a big problem for you. I have expanded my horizons beyond white comely Irish maidens dancing at the cross-roads, believe it or not. I didn't think that was all that unusual, to be honest... Is it? :confused:

As it happens, I'm in a monogamous relationship with someone of a different nationality now, which is why I wouldn't be presently seeking a relationship with anyone else (regardless of their cultural background), but that doesn't mean that I haven't actively sought a relationship with someone of a different nationality and/or ethnicity/colour in the past. To put your mind to rest, I have. Not that the national/ethnic/colour difference was a motivating reason or anything for that either. The difference just happened to be and was no more than an irrelevant detail, if you indeed need to classify it or assign it some status. I have never sought out a relationship with someone because of the colour of their skin, be it because it was the same as or different from my own. What a really weird question to ask... I can only assume it was another clumsy attempt to deflect from the rather chaotic and incoherent web you've spun for yourself.

Even if someone didn't actively seek out relationships with certain people or members of ethnic minorities, it wouldn't necessarily mean they were racist, nor would it mean they supported political discrimination, nor would it mean they were anti-equality, nor would it even mean they had something in particular (including of a racial nature) against a specific person to whom they didn't feel attracted (or people ethnically/culturally similar to them). It might simply mean they were more attracted to someone else who they knew at a particular point in time, and not necessarily because of their race, or maybe they just weren't interested in seeking out anyone, or maybe they looked for other more important qualities in people besides the colour of their skin and someone of similar ethnicity just so happened to tick the right boxes. You present a false dichotomy. There can be a middle ground with alternative explanations (besides racism) for why someone might happen to be attracted to a particular someone who happens to be of similar ethnicity and not to someone else who happens to be of a different ethnicity.

My cousin married an Indian girl two years ago. There were plenty of Irish people at the wedding, including myself, delighted for both of them. In fact, it hadn't even crossed my mind that the concept might have been as issue for some people in this day and age until you offered me a glimpse into your warped world of veiled bile and bigotry.


On priests, they have not decided to turn their back on women. They have joined the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not allow men and women to form relationships. They are the rules, if they were not rules, priests could and would have relationships with women.

But, you must think those rules and the resulting choices of certain men to abide by them is unnatural, no? It's what you've been arguing all along in relation to the "choice" of homosexuals to abide by their "rules".

You think homosexuality is a choice and you hold it against homosexuals who "make the choice" of not forming relationships with the opposite sex. If you think it's a choice, then if this was not their choice (just as if it were the priest's choice not to abide by the rules of the priesthood), couldn't homosexual men likewise have relationships with women? What's the difference in principle here considering you believe both homosexuality and the priesthood are matters of choice?


You have asked many questions in this thread. I can't answer them all

I'm simply asking you to clarify or elaborate on your position. If you can't defend what you're saying, maybe it's a sign it's built on suspect foundations?


I don't do logic

I can see that. Are you admitting to being a willing irrational hypocrite then?


what I do is tell you how things are

Far from it. You're doing very little more than spouting unfounded superstition, misinformation and prejudice.

[Lionel Ritchie]

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.

Up until just a few days ago I'd have largely agreed with this. Now I'm not so sure. I felt the Russian support for the seperatists was there but was largely passive and they were just happy enough to turn a blind eye to Russian regulars, ex-servicemen and volunteers cross the border and join in the fight to, as you put it, 'help defend their brothers'. I even thought the BUK1 business with MH-17 was a careless anomaly and unintended consequence rather than form.

But now, with reports coming in from many disparate sources talking to people from the Ukrainian side (as you point out a coventional state backed army -who are having their arses kicked) who are saying the sheer volume of heavy weaponry available to the seperatists can't be explained away by captured bases. They're saying the seperatists weapons are more modern than theirs and that they've all the ammo they could possibly want. I don't know if Putin is directly pulling the strings -but he seems to know a guy who knows a guy -and he's certainly doing little to dampen it down.



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 weather on July 17th was a mixed bag of end of summer weather -sunny spells and thunder showers. They might well have been able to see MH-17 with the naked eye. They might have panicked and fired knowing that once they'd switched on their radar their target could see them as well. My own suspicion is that they thought they could see a Ukrainian Ant-26 cruising at around 18-20,000ft OR the much commented Su-25 ground-attack plane at 12-14,000ft (which would go some way to explaining the itchy trigger finger) when they were actually looking at a much larger aircraft far higher up. Once the missile is launched it sets its own proximity fuse. The only shoot down I've heard of since MH-17 involved a Mig-29 (possibly 2 of them) which the Ukrainians are saying were shot at from inside Russia.


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. That would appear to be the size of it. Will it end there though?

[Spudulika]

Lionel, I'm listening/reading/watching a number of different sides to all of this and both my post and you are correct. I agree that there is an element of truth to the arms/weapons coming in from Russia, it doesn't surprise me in the least. In fact I am surprised more has not been done (but I would be truly disgusted if it was). I find both the Russian and anti-Russian rhetoric sickening and last week it really came home to me. Our Ambassador was visiting and I accompanied him to VSU and listened to his speech. In the question and answer session it was 5 plants standing up and trying to insult both him, the EU, the "west" and to get themselves noticed as "heroes". One clown went so far as to pretend to be a refugee, but when he spoke about media repression in Ukraine.....and him a journalist in Russia!

I do not know where this will end. The USA almost caused Nuclear War when Cuba got some missiles next door, I'm living very close to the Ukraine border - our region borders on it - so should Ukraine be in NATO? This was the big push by the Maidan crowd, EU and NATO membership. So people all over the region are worried. When the Maidan crowd had their coup and took power, they immediately moved to remove Russian language from schools and rights of ethnic minorities (including Tatars, Turks, Greeks). So it was scare tactics all around.

It is wrong what all sides are doing, but this is not Yugoslavia. It's not Syria or Iraq. Russia has nuclear capability and while I doubt if it will come to it, it just seems to be ramping up and up.

[mypost]

And brings us conveniently back to my point you previously ignored. If 86% of Britons were non-catholic, would it be okay if Britain as a nation systematically discriminated against catholics? A simple yes or no.

What do you want me to say? You're asking me to comment on hypothetical scenarios that will never happen. This is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.


Spiritual or religious fasters who practice mind over matter might even disagree with you (on the craving assertion), but what does all this mean anyway? Of what moral significance or consequence is it?

You brought the subject up.

You can choose to fast or not fast. Your system doesn't care, it still demands that you eat food. If you don't eat, you can suffer anything from starvation, to anorexia and in extreme cases, you lose your life. So people eventually have to eat.


I thought you believed all Russians were straight people with a small homosexual-identifying minority in denial of their natural heterosexuality choosing to behave "differently"?

And you don't think 20 million people is a significant number of people?

As stated earlier, more than 4 in every 5 Russians are straight people. That clearcut majority shows that not "very many" people as you claimed, are bothered by the issue.


I think more and more people are simply accepting it; their acceptance isn't conditional "so long as it doesn't directly affect me" because most reasonable people realise that homosexuality isn't some sort of intrusive or aggressive threat to them or their way of life that they need to fear and guard against.

I've already explained why several times. I don't have to again.


Why's it such a big secret? You seemed to take issue with the notion that the Irish press, public and politicians weren't simultaneously condemning the attitudes of this country, but how can anyone condemn them and their attitudes if we don't know who you're talking about? Sure why not reveal all so that we can scream "discrimination"?

That's convenient, but there's bound to be a reference to this curious claim online somewhere, surely?

No there isn't. I've already said I'm not going to identify it, so there's nothing more to add.


Anyway, let's not jump to conclusions. You're only showing your sorry xenophobic/racist self up now. If you automatically assume that I and others would have a problem with being in a relationship with "a [sic] opposite gender person of different nationality/colour", I'm afraid you're letting your own mask slip and betraying your own prejudices. It's pretty apparent this would be a big problem for you. I have expanded my horizons beyond white comely Irish maidens dancing at the cross-roads, believe it or not. I didn't think that was all that unusual, to be honest... Is it? :confused:

As said earlier, it doesn't matter to me what you've done. And I don't need to know your whole life history in order to verify it. The thread isn't about you, or me for that matter. But I don't have an issue with you dating opposite gender people that are non-Irish. What you can't argue with is that most people will only date those from their own race, black or white, and from their own local areas, as it's easier for them to go with what they know.


I'm simply asking you to clarify or elaborate on your position. If you can't defend what you're saying, maybe it's a sign it's built on suspect foundations?

I think my stance on this issue is pretty clear by now and I have defended the main points. Sorry for not elaborating to your satisfaction, but once again, this post is bombarded with questions and waffle, many of which I can't and/or don't want to respond to for numerous reasons.


You're doing very little more than spouting unfounded superstition, misinformation and prejudice.

I've given you an insight into Russian culture. It's clear you want them to conform to what the culture is in this part of the world. Well unfortunately for you, Russia is different. The country is different, the culture is different, the people are different. They are a stubborn race of people, and not interested in being lectured by foreigners on how their culture is apparantly "wrong".

[peadar1987]

What do you want me to say?
I would love for you to say it would be completely wrong, and then to realise that this makes a mockery of your claims that it's okay for Russia to discriminate against homosexuals because lots of Russians are homophobes, but I'd settle for a straight yes or no.



You're asking me to comment on hypothetical scenarios that will never happen. This is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

They may be hypothetical, but they are absolutely relevant to the debate at hand.

If you are bothered by the fact that it will never happen, I can give you a real life example.

In the 1930s in Germany, the majority of people were antisemitic, and mistrusted the Jews, without any great desire to exterminate them (the original plan was to deport them to Madagascar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan]). Were the Germans within their rights to discriminate against the Jewish people? To attack them? To boycott their businesses and those who stood up for them?

[DannyInvincible]

You brought the subject up.

You can choose to fast or not fast. Your system doesn't care, it still demands that you eat food. If you don't eat, you can suffer anything from starvation, to anorexia and in extreme cases, you lose your life. So people eventually have to eat.

I brought it up to demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning; as an example of something over which we have choice, even if we need to do it to survive, yet there's no necessary moral obligation to eat, nor is it immoral to diet, fast or hunger-strike. You're not really demonstrating to me why it is significant for the purposes of our debate on the supposed righteousness of homophobia or anti-homosexual discrimination. Am I to assume then that your repetition of the above is finally an admission that this matter is of no significance to the debate?


As stated earlier, more than 4 in every 5 Russians are straight people. That clearcut majority shows that not "very many" people as you claimed, are bothered by the issue.

Please pinpoint where I used the term "very many". I said "significant number"; not "very many". A fifth is a significant portion, especially when it amounts to 20 million people. It's a significant minority. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that, there's no point really continuing to argue with you over it.


I've already explained why several times. I don't have to again.

Explained what several times? Why it would be rational and reasonable for people to assume that homosexuality is intrusive or aggressive? You haven't explained that at all. I don't think that insulting and irrational innuendo-laden caveat is at all important in many people's acceptance of homosexuality. Please stop dodging. Your posts are getting more and more meaningless, the more you dodge.


No there isn't. I've already said I'm not going to identify it, so there's nothing more to add.

Well, I don't know what to make of that. It's simply odd. I don't know why you're making such a big deal about this and being babyishly stubborn about something so inconsequential as providing details on the location of where you sourced your alleged information.


As said earlier, it doesn't matter to me what you've done. And I don't need to know your whole life history in order to verify it. The thread isn't about you, or me for that matter. But I don't have an issue with you dating opposite gender people that are non-Irish. What you can't argue with is that most people will only date those from their own race, black or white, and from their own local areas, as it's easier for them to go with what they know.

If you weren't interested, why did you ask me personally? I was simply stating my own position on a proposition that was ridiculous to me. I can't speak with any degree of certainty for other people, so don't try and give the impression that I was trying to argue something on their behalf when all I have been doing is pointing out entirely plausible alternative explanations to you.

Even if what you said was true - that people tend to go with what they know - that wouldn't mean the majority of people are racists. It would just mean that many people might prefer engagement/interaction with what is most convenient or with what they feel culturally most comfortable or at home. That's not racism. Remind me of the relevance of this matter again... :confused:


I think my stance on this issue is pretty clear by now and I have defended the main points. Sorry for not elaborating to your satisfaction, but once again, this post is bombarded with questions and waffle, many of which I can't and/or don't want to respond to for numerous reasons.

You haven't defended your main points at all. There are post-loads of absolutely crucial questions throughout this thread that remain unanswered, so let's not try and kid people. What would those reasons be anyway?


I've given you an insight into Russian culture. It's clear you want them to conform to what the culture is in this part of the world. Well unfortunately for you, Russia is different. The country is different, the culture is different, the people are different. They are a stubborn race of people, and not interested in being lectured by foreigners on how their culture is apparantly "wrong".

More misrepresentation. I don't advocate or endorse conformity. Russians can believe what they want and be "traditionalists" if they want; I'm just pointing out the irrationality of such attitudes. People can choose to be irrational if they like.

Peadar, I think mypost has just unwittingly produced his own contradicting analogy in his defence of Russia and Russians being different in their unwillingness to embrace/tolerate homosexuality. Of course, he has no time for people criticising Russian difference (their attitutes on homosexuality), but he has all the time in the world for prejudice and people discriminating against homosexual difference.

How does this read, mypost?:


I've given you an insight into LGBT issues. It's clear you want homosexuals to conform to what the supposed "norm" is in your world. Well, unfortunately for you, homosexuals are different. The lifestyle is different, the culture is different, the people are different. They are a stubborn group of people, and not interested in being lectured by homophobes on how their culture is apparently "wrong".

[Mr A]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0227/683424-nemtsov/

An obvious western plot to make Putin look bad.

[Charlie Darwin]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0227/683424-nemtsov/

An obvious western plot to make Putin look bad.
A spectacular case of whataboutery that would make a Unionist blush.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-47moLUYAEYUHT.jpg:large

[Crosby87]

Kasparov is on the war path on twitter.

[Spudulika]

I met Nemtsov in 2013 and again late last year. He was ex-KGB, a friend of Putin and one of the fake parties supported by the Kremlin. I do not know who murdered him, but he had many, many enemies. He was involved in a lot of business in the lead up to the Olympics and while he was trumpeted by the "liberals", he was not the most trustworthy. He is from the same mould as Navalny, but still, he was intelligent, funny and actually did care about Russia, but along the lines of the Russian nationalists. His anti-war stance regarding Ukraine was heartfelt (I saw this last year with him). The "west" will love this!

[Spudulika]

A spectacular case of whataboutery that would make a Unionist blush.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-47moLUYAEYUHT.jpg:large

It's Max Keiser......he's as bad as any of the goons who write for the slop buckets of news in the UK or Ireland. Keiser has his moments, but generally he just spouts nonsense and gets well paid by Russia Today.

[Crosby87]

I enjoyed the book "Midnight in Siberia" by NPRs David Greene, Spuds. He takes that Trans Siberian railroad all over looking for stories, third class.

[Charlie Darwin]

It's Max Keiser......he's as bad as any of the goons who write for the slop buckets of news in the UK or Ireland. Keiser has his moments, but generally he just spouts nonsense and gets well paid by Russia Today.
And TV3.

[Crosby87]

If it was Putin it was so brazen though.

[mypost]

They may be hypothetical, but they are absolutely relevant to the debate at hand.

If you are bothered by the fact that it will never happen, I can give you a real life example.

In the 1930s in Germany...

They are hypothetical scenarios. Your example is 80 years old. The world has moved on. The dfa.ie travel advice website, clarifies the Russian legal position.


I brought it up to demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning; as an example of something over which we have choice, even if we need to do it to survive, yet...

You could have just stopped waffling there, because those words in bold sort the issue.


explained what several times? You haven't explained that at all.

Yes I have. You clearly haven't understood what I'm saying. Hence all the questions, none of which I am obliged to answer.


Well, I don't know what to make of that. It's simply odd. I don't know why you're making such a big deal about this.

It was brought up to show the hypocrisy of telling the Russians that what they do is discrimination, but when the same social attitudes prevail in more western countries, nobody here bats an eyelid.


I was simply stating my own position on a proposition that was ridiculous to me. I can't speak with any degree of certainty for other people, so don't try and give the impression that I was trying to argue something on their behalf when all I have been doing is pointing out entirely plausible alternative explanations to you.

Waffling you mean.

You then accused me of being xenophobic, because I brought up what is a huge issue in Russia, and a perfectly valid one to raise in a thread like this.


Even if what you said was true - that people tend to go with what they know - that wouldn't mean the majority of people are racists. It would just mean that many people might prefer engagement/interaction with what is most convenient or with what they feel culturally most comfortable or at home. That's not racism.:confused:

Discriminating against people specifically because they are a colour you don't want, or because of where they live or where they are from, is racism.


You haven't defended your main points at all. What would those reasons be anyway?

I have defended them repeatedly and firmly. You just have to read them.


More misrepresentation. I don't advocate or endorse conformity.

Yes you are. You believe in a one size fits all lifestyle, where everyone is equal, no matter how different they decide to be, or how they promote and/or celebrate that difference. All explanations of the alternative view are met with a waffling series of ifs, buts, and maybes, and a tonne of questions that can't, in some cases shouldn't, be answered. My belief is that all adults are ultimately responsible for the choices and decisions they make, and can't be seen as and treated equally if they make the wrong decisions, in whatever walk of life it is.


I think he has no time for people criticising Russian difference

I do have time, and have to listen to it unopposed for long enough. But just as they have the right to complain about Russians, Russians have the right to ignore those complaints and live as per their culture.

They and other nationalities will tell us that we drink too much. As a nation we recognise that, but it's our culture. We won't let foreigners tell us paddies and biddies how to drink, so we will just carry on boozing to within an inch of our lives and ignore them.


How does this read?

It reads like someone who has finally ran out of quizzes and hit the wall.

[mypost]

Up until just a few days ago I'd have largely agreed with this. Now I'm not so sure.

The weather on July 17th was a mixed bag of end of summer weather -sunny spells and thunder showers. They might well have been able to see MH-17 with the naked eye. They might have panicked and fired knowing that once they'd switched on their radar their target could see them as well. My own suspicion is that they thought they could see a Ukrainian Ant-26 cruising at around 18-20,000ft OR the much commented Su-25 ground-attack plane at 12-14,000ft (which would go some way to explaining the itchy trigger finger) when they were actually looking at a much larger aircraft far higher up. Once the missile is launched it sets its own proximity fuse. The only shoot down I've heard of since MH-17 involved a Mig-29 (possibly 2 of them) which the Ukrainians are saying were shot at from inside Russia.

That would appear to be the size of it. Will it end there though?

I couldn't tell one airline from another at 10k ft from the eye, the only way of tracking it woild be radar, and they had targeted that plane as it would flew over. Several military aircraft were attacked in mid air in the days leading up to the Malaysian Airlines crash after all.

It's easy for the west to demand a ceasefire, but their territory isn't under threat. The conflict is very like the one in NI, only the weapons are heavier, and the casualties are higher. But it still boils down to power and control over disputed territory.

Putin emerged from the Minsk talks happy as larry, having got Poroshenko to sign Luhansk, Donetsk and the surrounding regions away. He once threatened Barroso that he could have Kiev in two days if he so wanted, but he's probably happy enough with the current situation.


Lionel, I'm listening/reading/watching a number of different sides to all of this and both my post and you are correct. I find both the Russian and anti-Russian rhetoric sickening and last week it really came home to me. Our Ambassador was visiting and I accompanied him to VSU and listened to his speech. In the question and answer session it was 5 plants standing up and trying to insult both him, the EU, the "west" and to get themselves noticed as "heroes". One clown went so far as to pretend to be a refugee, but when he spoke about media repression in Ukraine.....and him a journalist in Russia!

I do not know where this will end. The USA almost caused Nuclear War when Cuba got some missiles next door, I'm living very close to the Ukraine border - our region borders on it - so should Ukraine be in NATO? This was the big push by the Maidan crowd, EU and NATO membership. So people all over the region are worried. When the Maidan crowd had their coup and took power, they immediately moved to remove Russian language from schools and rights of ethnic minorities

It took 20 years for Croatia to join the EU, but the EU and NATO don't really want Ukraine imo. Their handling of the crisis has been amateurish at best, leaving Russia holding all the cards to do as it pleases. But if Ukraine was free of Russian influence, they would be within their rights to remove the obligation to learn Russian. The people would probably rather learn English, where they can be understood all over the world, than be obliged to learn a language they don't want. It's not like here, where you have to learn Irish at the expense of more widely spoken languages.

One thing I admired the Maidan demonstrators for is their perseverance to see their demands through to a conclusion, even in -20c with no electricity or transport running, they were still willing to do so. In Ireland, everyone turns up, shouts a few slogans, hands in a petition, then get the scoops in and heads off. Then life returns to as it was, and little or nothing changes on the ground.

As for our ambassador, if Putin won't listen to Obama and Moon, he isn't really interested in listening to what he has to say either. Putin has 9 more years in power to run. Anyone who seriously challenges his authority in that time can make it as far as the Volga, but not the Kremlin.

Last summer, Khordokovsky was released. The running joke at the time was that Putin gave Khordokovsky to the world and kept Ukraine for himself. As many have found to their cost in Russia down the years, getting on the wrong side of an ex-KGB head isn't the wisest thing to do.

[Crosby87]

Do any of you guys think its possible that some of these oligarchs will band together and take out Putin?

[DannyInvincible]

You could have just stopped waffling there, because those words in bold sort the issue.

Keep telling yourself that. That post is simply another bucket-load of deflection. I don't think you want to have an honest discussion about this at all.


It was brought up to show the hypocrisy of telling the Russians that what they do is discrimination, but when the same social attitudes prevail in more western countries, nobody here bats an eyelid.

But how can we bat an eye-lid? You won't even tell us who you're talking about!


You then accused me of being xenophobic, because I brought up what is a huge issue in Russia, and a perfectly valid one to raise in a thread like this.

Do you deny being xenophobic?


Discriminating against people specifically because they are a colour you don't want, or because of where they live or where they are from, is racism.

Yes, that is racism, but you're pulling my leg, right? Because that's something entirely different from the explanatory examples I provided for you. In those examples, skin colour wasn't a factor in the possible decision-making process at all. Any ethnic difference was just an insignificant and incidental detail. I feel embarrassed that I have to point that out to you. Anyway, I don't discriminate against people due to their skin colour, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you discriminate on such a basis?


Yes you are. You believe in a one size fits all lifestyle, where everyone is equal, no matter how different they decide to be, or how they promote and/or celebrate that difference. All explanations of the alternative view are met with a waffling series of ifs, buts, and maybes, and a tonne of questions that can't, in some cases shouldn't, be answered.

You're the one prescribing things here (under the illusion of describing). I don't believe in anything! ;)

I'm questioning your prescriptions. Why shouldn't those questions be answered?

In seriousness, of course I have my personal beliefs, preferences and biases, but I would never assume that they're inherently right or that others' beliefs are inherently wrong, as if to suggest I possess knowledge of some absolute truth to which others should conform, nor would I think that my beliefs ought to morally instruct other people's private behaviour or impinge upon their private business. I try to adhere to the rules of logic and rational thought and when I feel that others might be engaging in illogic, deception or obfuscation, I'll point that out, but it doesn't mean I'm making a moral judgment. You can be illogical if you wish; ultimately, there's no greater value in either position. My perspective is only that - one human perspective - whereas you seem to think you have some omnipotent entitlement to declare whole swathes of people "wrong" simply by virtue of who and what they are. From where did you develop such profound insight?


My belief is that all adults are ultimately responsible for the choices and decisions they make, and can't be seen as and treated equally if they make the wrong decisions, in whatever walk of life it is.

So, are you essentially saying that all discrimination is fine or what? Is there any form of discrimination that you would find objectionable or see as irrational?


I do have time, and have to listen to it unopposed for long enough. But just as they have the right to complain about Russians, Russians have the right to ignore those complaints and live as per their culture.

So why don't you afford the same right to homosexuals? Why don't homosexuals have the right to reject discrimination and live as per their culture?

[Crosby87]

Danny I dont think he is saying gays should not have rights. You both make great points. I actually think you agree about more than you think. I worked for the US (arguably) foremost expert on Russia, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. You both understand what few do...it's a different story than anywhere else. Russia is different balls.

But both of you should pay attention to my synopsis. Prokhorov and others are losing net worth. I realize that granted 300 million to a billionaire is a splash in the bucket but still. In one day? They see it as a trend....Im telling y'all....they are going to take Putin out. You heard it here first. Prok wanting to sell the Nets right after taking a hit was no coincidence.

[DannyInvincible]

Danny I dont think he is saying gays should not have rights.

I'm not convinced. If I'm incorrect, I'd invite him to declare that homosexuals ought to be entitled to their rights just like everyone else, for there's no rational reason to discriminate against them. He won't do that. I'd happily be wrong on that, but he'll sidestep it.


I actually think you agree about more than you think.

Y'reckon? You been smokin' again?... :p

He states with such apparent certainty and conviction that homosexuality is wrong, in absolutist fashion, as if this is an objective fact or as if it is inherently so, but he then derides others for what he considers moralistic "lecturing" on Russian domestic policy. He's a complete hypocrite. Does he have any self-awareness at all?

[Spudulika]

Do any of you guys think its possible that some of these oligarchs will band together and take out Putin?

This was almost a case a few years ago when all the big boys started arguing. What we all understand is that Putin is only 1 of a group of hoods running the country. He is a leader but if he goes, there is far worse waiting in the wings. I think the murder of Nemtsov could be the beginning of an internal civil war. He was a useful clown for the Kremlin, he never strayed far from his KGB buddies and was supplied with money and girlfriends to keep him keen. A storm could be brewing.

[Spudulika]

I'm not convinced. If I'm incorrect, I'd invite him to declare that homosexuals ought to be entitled to their rights just like everyone else, for there's no rational reason to discriminate against them. He won't do that. I'd happily be wrong on that, but he'll sidestep it.



Y'reckon? You been smokin' again?... :p

He states with such apparent certainty and conviction that homosexuality is wrong, in absolutist fashion, as if this is an objective fact or as if it is inherently so, but he then derides others for what he considers moralistic "lecturing" on Russian domestic policy. He's a complete hypocrite. Does he have any self-awareness at all?

Why invite him for anything Danny? Regardless of anything else, he should be entitled to believe or feel as he does, without fear or ridicule or attack - sound familiar? Matters have gone so far overboard that people are afraid to think or speak against what the "meeja" tells us is the norm, regardless of facts on the ground.

[DannyInvincible]

Why invite him for anything Danny? Regardless of anything else, he should be entitled to believe or feel as he does, without fear or ridicule or attack - sound familiar? Matters have gone so far overboard that people are afraid to think or speak against what the "meeja" tells us is the norm, regardless of facts on the ground.

He is entitled certainly. I mean, there's a part of me that sees merit in the arguments for the controversial "conscience clause" in the north (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/26/over-148000-sign-petition-against-anti-gay-northern-ireland-conscience-clause-bill/) even though I utterly loathe for what it stands, as in: "I don't agree with your thoughts, but I'll defend your right to think them." There's something about compelling private citizens in the running of their private business to do something against their will and in contravention of their strongly-held personal beliefs that I find problematic and troubling (no matter how unpalatable and unsavoury I might find those beliefs).

It's good to to have diverse opinions; what rankles with me is when I sense there's intentional deception and deflection going on. I'm not necessarily saying that things should be this way or that. However, if we, as a human race, broadly accept that people are deserving of rights, and he appears to accept that (or at least accepts that some people are deserving of rights), I don't see any sound reason to deny homosexuals a share of these rights simply on the basis of their sexuality. To this point, I feel he has failed to provide a convincing reason as to why homosexuals in particular should be on the receiving end of discrimination when others (particularly Russians and Catholic priests, to use two examples we've discussed) are worthy of rights. The fundamental difference between us is that I'm quite content for other people to be able to do what they like in their private lives (whatever that might be; be it consensual sexual cannibalism even or whatever), especially when it is of no harm to non-consenting others. He not only feels he has the right to judge over this realm, but he also endorses discrimination, when it's really none of his business to cross such a boundary. I find it slightly objectionable and intrusive.

[Spudulika]

He is entitled certainly. I mean, there's a part of me that sees merit in the arguments for the controversial "conscience clause" in the north (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/26/over-148000-sign-petition-against-anti-gay-northern-ireland-conscience-clause-bill/) even though I utterly loathe for what it stands, as in: "I don't agree with your thoughts, but I'll defend your right to think them." There's something about compelling private citizens in the running of their private business to do something against their will and in contravention of their strongly-held personal beliefs that I find problematic and troubling (no matter how unpalatable and unsavoury I might find those beliefs).

It's good to to have diverse opinions; what rankles with me is when I sense there's intentional deception and deflection going on. I'm not necessarily saying that things should be this way or that. However, if we, as a human race, broadly accept that people are deserving of rights, and he appears to accept that (or at least accepts that some people are deserving of rights), I don't see any sound reason to deny homosexuals a share of these rights simply on the basis of their sexuality. To this point, I feel he has failed to provide a convincing reason as to why homosexuals in particular should be on the receiving end of discrimination when others (particularly Russians and Catholic priests, to use two examples we've discussed) are worthy of rights. The fundamental difference between us is that I'm quite content for other people to be able to do what they like in their private lives (whatever that might be; be it consensual sexual cannibalism even or whatever), especially when it is of no harm to non-consenting others. He not only feels he has the right to judge over this realm, but he also endorses discrimination, when it's really none of his business to cross such a boundary. I find it slightly objectionable and intrusive.

If you respect his, and others, rights to hold views opposing yours, then why the need to impress your own views on others? Or to lecture them? To force anything from them. If you believe you are correct, that belief is, in itself, enough. And if your belief is right, then in the long run the vast majority will come round to this way of thinking.

On the topic of the thread, an appalling piece of hagiography with a major tilt against the Kremlin. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/magazine/after-boris-nemtsovs-assassination-there-are-no-longer-any-limits.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

Not surprised as the journo is one of the weakest and ridiculous about. Also she should have disclosed her fling with the dead man, but that would leave him less than human. And the funniest is his "girlfriend of 3 years", who only moved to Russia in 2014 and was set up in a nice apartment by her pimp. It's an appalling vista. The opposition are as decadent and corrupt as the ones in power - Ksenia Sobchak (a lowlife and godchild of Putin), Ilya Yashin (ponzi scheme seller), Nemtsov (bagman and land swindler), Navalny (tax fiddler) and the rest. Great stuff. Kind of makes our opposition look relatively respectable.

[DannyInvincible]

If you respect his, and others, rights to hold views opposing yours, then why the need to impress your own views on others? Or to lecture them? To force anything from them. If you believe you are correct, that belief is, in itself, enough.

It's not that I'm trying to impose my views upon him. I'm just trying to point out what I feel is his faulty reasoning (and, I suppose, what I perceive to be his intellectual encroachment, for want of a better description, into the private matters of others that have no bearing on him and that have nothing to do with him) in the hope of convincing him to look at things from another perspective, but I don't think I'm infallible, in spite of my alias. :p

Appreciating the rules of logic is kind of fundamental to any serious, rigourous and critical debate, but he has since explicitly acknowledged he has no interest in logic or reason. I'm not saying that I'm faultless myself nor, as a human being, am I immune from "irrational" impulses or emotions, but I would like to think I wouldn't willingly eschew logic in debate. I just find his a peculiar admission, especially since he's happy to put forth some fairly contentious and provocative views. He's well aware of their nature, so what was he expecting? As far as I'm concerned, he has asserted his views merely rhetorically without actually demonstrating their validity. But, sure, he's entitled to all that. It's just hard to get my head around it, but, as you suggest, maybe it's unreasonable of me to assume that people would welcome the logical method or would think it important that they are able to defend views they put forward on a discussion forum.

I don't think I'm particularly militant on such matters anyway. Maybe I come across differently here as it's a forum specifically for discussion and debate, so, no surprise, I happen to be involved in such pursuits more often than not here, but, in real life, I'm perfectly happy to respect, for example, my mother's Catholic faith (even though I, at heart, find the notion of such blind faith irrational) without feeling the need to challenge or lecture her on it. I never have once in my life done so, out of respect, and it in no way makes me think any less of her for it. I don't have much time for the lecturing of the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher and the "New Atheists" either. The main reason I'm pursuing mypost on this particular matter, however, is because there's surely an invitation to others to discuss your views implicit in putting them forward on a public discussion forum. I wouldn't persist, nor would I even have initiated conversation with him, had he not volunteered for the debate.

In terms of me thinking that my belief might be right being enough. Not that I necessarily would think my belief is inherently "the right one" anyway, but it's not quite that simple. As far as I'm concerned, the sort of views that mypost has been expressing, as well as being built on suspect incoherent reasoning, can have poisonous social repercussions. He's endorsing discrimination against homosexuals. I also sensed a hint of racism/xenophobia. He's explicitly bringing other people's lives and private business into it by endorsing negative treatment against them. I wouldn't feel as compelled to challenge him if I thought his views were purely innocent in their possible effect or ambitions. It's important such views are challenged.


And if your belief is right, then in the long run the vast majority will come round to this way of thinking.

You have great faith in humanity! :p

Would you have told agitators for great social change through history (say, those advocating the abolition of slavery, segregation or apartheid) to just wait it out - to just put up with intolerance - until the majority came round to their way of thinking though? Who knows what the world might still be like if everyone kept their more progressive or radical ideas to themselves without challenging the status quo?

[Spudulika]

It's not that I'm trying to impose my views upon him. I'm just trying to point out what I feel is his faulty reasoning (and, I suppose, what I perceive to be his intellectual encroachment, for want of a better description, into the private matters of others that have no bearing on him and that have nothing to do with him) in the hope of convincing him to look at things from another perspective, but I don't think I'm infallible, in spite of my alias. :p

Appreciating the rules of logic is kind of fundamental to any serious, rigourous and critical debate, but he has since explicitly acknowledged he has no interest in logic or reason. I'm not saying that I'm faultless myself nor, as a human being, am I immune from "irrational" impulses or emotions, but I would like to think I wouldn't willingly eschew logic in debate. I just find his a peculiar admission, especially since he's happy to put forth some fairly contentious and provocative views. He's well aware of their nature, so what was he expecting? As far as I'm concerned, he has asserted his views merely rhetorically without actually demonstrating their validity. But, sure, he's entitled to all that. It's just hard to get my head around it, but, as you suggest, maybe it's unreasonable of me to assume that people would welcome the logical method or would think it important that they are able to defend views they put forward on a discussion forum.

I don't think I'm particularly militant on such matters anyway. Maybe I come across differently here as it's a forum specifically for discussion and debate, so, no surprise, I happen to be involved in such pursuits more often than not here, but, in real life, I'm perfectly happy to respect, for example, my mother's Catholic faith (even though I, at heart, find the notion of such blind faith irrational) without feeling the need to challenge or lecture her on it. I never have once in my life done so, out of respect, and it in no way makes me think any less of her for it. I don't have much time for the lecturing of the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher and the "New Atheists" either. The main reason I'm pursuing mypost on this particular matter, however, is because there's surely an invitation to others to discuss your views implicit in putting them forward on a public discussion forum. I wouldn't persist, nor would I even have initiated conversation with him, had he not volunteered for the debate.

In terms of me thinking that my belief might be right being enough. Not that I necessarily would think my belief is inherently "the right one" anyway, but it's not quite that simple. As far as I'm concerned, the sort of views that mypost has been expressing, as well as being built on suspect incoherent reasoning, can have poisonous social repercussions. He's endorsing discrimination against homosexuals. I also sensed a hint of racism/xenophobia. He's explicitly bringing other people's lives and private business into it by endorsing negative treatment against them. I wouldn't feel as compelled to challenge him if I thought his views were purely innocent in their possible effect or ambitions. It's important such views are challenged.



You have great faith in humanity! :p

Would you have told agitators for great social change through history (say, those advocating the abolition of slavery, segregation or apartheid) to just wait it out - to just put up with intolerance - until the majority came round to their way of thinking though? Who knows what the world might still be like if everyone kept their more progressive or radical ideas to themselves without challenging the status quo?

Danny, it does look like you're trying to do that - make him/everyone think the same. I don't believe anyone on here (except Bray fans maybe) will go around attacking same sex couples - Bray fans, I am joking - though many will believe it is a) not natural, ) not moral, c) something else. For me, to each their own. I have my own views on people and how we choose or don't choose our destinies, but I'm a victim of both archaeology and history (damn you UCD and NUIM).

But despite everything I've experienced in my life, I do have faith in humanity. I have doubts at times, this weekend seeing the nonsense about Nemtsov (for example) or reading about the US and UK supplying ISIS, it's just hard to believe that there is intelligent life on this planet, or outside the animal kingdom.

I look at the "tolerance" issue - and I hate the word "tolerance", but then I think, actually, if it begins with tolerance, it will grow into something more. But without understanding there can be no tolerance. And in the Russian context this is mega. Even if urban Russia were to understand alternative lifestyles, there is no chance that it will be understood in the Caucasus! I say this with experience, even last week I was on the Grozny-Moscow train, Russian law barely extends to the border of Chechnya, so in Russia there is a complete imbalance. It is not accepted or understood outside of Russia, but we're living in an actual warzone with all sides of the spectrum on it - and violence never far from the surface. Gay rights is very far from the main needs of the nation right now, but it deserves at least a mention.

[peadar1987]

They are hypothetical scenarios. Your example is 80 years old. The world has moved on. The dfa.ie travel advice website, clarifies the Russian legal position.

Do you even understand how logical arguments work, seriously, just give me an answer and stop being evasive. German discrimination against the Jews. Right or wrong?

If you really, really, really want a current example, do people in the tribal regions of Pakistan have the right to treat women as second class citizens who aren't entitled to work outside the home, get an education, or choose who they marry?

[DannyInvincible]

Do you even understand how logical arguments work, seriously, just give me an answer and stop being evasive. German discrimination against the Jews. Right or wrong?

Mypost: "I don't do logic". (http://foot.ie/threads/196660-Big-Bad-Bears-Russia-and-Putin?p=1805059&viewfull=1#post1805059)

[DannyInvincible]

Danny, it does look like you're trying to do that - make him/everyone think the same.

Isn't the point of a debate or argument though to kind of convince someone with whom you're arguing of the merits of your argument (and of the weakness in theirs)?

It's good that people think differently, but when you hold and exhibit blatantly hypocritical and contradictory double standards, it's no wonder people will ask questions and wonder why on earth it is that you're applying your standards inconsistently. Thinking differently and differing opinions are all good, but at least be able to defend your views if you're going to put the more contentious ones out there for open discussion. (Not you specifically.)

[Spudulika]

Isn't the point of a debate or argument though to kind of convince someone with whom you're arguing of the merits of your argument (and of the weakness in theirs)?

It's good that people think differently, but when you hold and exhibit blatantly hypocritical and contradictory double standards, it's no wonder people will ask questions and wonder why on earth it is that you're applying your standards inconsistently. Thinking differently and differing opinions are all good, but at least be able to defend your views if you're going to put the more contentious ones out there for open discussion. (Not you specifically.)

I just don't think we need to focus on this. If a person doesn't want to engage in fact-based discussion, then walk on.

I was listening to an idiot talk on the radio in the car this afternoon. I was listening to a "patriot" talking about how liberal values are invading Russia. He was getting traction from calling liberal promotion of pederasty and degraded living "corrupt western values". And callers/texters were agreeing. I listened for a 15 minutes then switched for sanity to a liberal station, and they were creating the myth of Nemtsov, how he was so great, so wonderful "despite his past". Callers/texters were agreeing. Yet this was a man who spoke with a forked tongue about gay rights, but privately held very different views! And I'm sitting there thinking - both sides have no fact based argument. So I just turned off the radio. Maybe we need to do that sometimes.

[Crosby87]

What do you do for a living spuds, if I may be so bold?

[mypost]

Keep telling yourself that. I don't think you want to have an honest discussion about this at all.

No, I'm telling you that. But at least you recognise that I don't want a discussion on the issue. I told you that weeks ago.

Since the multi-quote option became available on foot.ie many moons ago, I usually keep all replies in one post. That's different in this thread, as I want to keep replies to this issue and more important, relevant, thread-related issues separate.


Yes, that is racism

The admittance is all we needed to know thank you.


It's not that I'm trying to impose my views upon him.

You've been trying to do that since your first reply on the issue.


I'm just trying to point out what I feel is his faulty reasoning (and, I suppose in the hope of convincing him to look at things from another perspective

I have stated my reasons enough times, and stand by them completely, but I'm not looking to convince you or indeed others. Debate threads are to debate issues, not to "convince" others of the opposing view. I have my view on this issue, I've given the reasons to adequately support that view imo, and you can make of it what you will, and have.

Many posters have tried to convince me of many viewpoints in the past 10 years, few have succeeded, and on this issue you have no chance. I am fed up that this rubbish is THE big issue about the country in western media, while 6,000 people are losing their lives across the border on a daily basis, and where political opponents are jailed and/or executed. That is where the press focus should be.


I just find his a peculiar admission, especially since he's happy to put forth some fairly contentious and provocative views. He's well aware of their nature, so what was he expecting?

The right that they be respected for starters. My views are not controversial, in many countries they would be considered the norm, and because I'm aware that people under-17 and non-members of this forum are looking at this thread, I have to be responsible in the language I use.


I wouldn't persist, nor would I even have initiated conversation with him, had he not volunteered for the debate.

I never volunteered for the debate whatsoever, I came in to discuss various aspects of Russia and Russian culture. But when someone here says the country should face "sanctions" for adopting mild, traditional family friendly policies, I can't let that go. It's one of the few Russian government policies I fully support.


As far as I'm concerned, the sort of views that mypost has been expressing, can have poisonous social repercussions.

I say that tearing up the traditional marital/family unit, as this country is presently trying to do, all under the pretence of "equality", is far more damaging to society. Especially to their offspring who are/will have serious issues with their identity in the future, and will (through no fault of their own) also have to deal with a lifetime of comment and discrimination for being different to the rest of the population.


do people in the tribal regions of Pakistan have the right to treat women as second class citizens who aren't entitled to work outside the home, get an education, or choose who they marry?

This is a different take from the previous example. The above is not state policy, but local culture. In that part of the world, the man has his clearly defined, traditional role in life, and the woman hers. And as in Russia, society by and large is content with that set up.

In our society, women constantly complain over equal pay. But is that discrimination or the realisation that men in general are more committed to their careers, work longer hours than women, and are adequately compensated for it?

[Mr A]

Another piece on why Putin is so dangerous.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11431850/Inside-the-mind-of-Vladimir-Putin.html

The bits about Putin just stealing stuff are pretty mental. Overall it's little wonder that the Baltic nations are very nervous about what will happen next.

[DannyInvincible]

The admittance is all we needed to know thank you.

Admittance? What are you even talking about? You offered a pretty clear-cut example of racism; something radically different from the nuanced scenarios I was discussing and the explanations to the possible outcomes of those scenarios that I put forward. I'm not sure how my agreement that discriminating against people specifically because of their skin colour is obviously racist supports your dubious claim that most people are somehow intuitively or latently racist, even if, according to you, "most people will only date those from their own race, black or white, and from their own local areas, as it's easier for them to go with what they know". There's so much more possibly going on in people's lives than crudely discriminating between potential partners on the basis of skin colour when those who do so happen to "go with what they know". Not everyone is as one-dimensional (and xenophobic) as you are. Christ, people being with "what they know" or partners of similar ethnicity may not even be a conscious decision or realisation. There's no reason to assume that other factors haven't been significant in full. As I said, you present a false dichotomy without taking into account a whole array - an infinite number, in fact - of possible alternative explanations. Surely you can acknowledge that the thought process could be/is more likely to be something along the lines of, "I like this person because they have a range of positive qualities that I find attractive" (skin colour doesn't even come into it), or, "I'm attracted to this person because we share many things in common" (being white just so happens to be one of them, but it isn't a factor of any significance), rather than, "I like this person because they are white like me", or, "Deep-down, I don't have much time for ethnic minorities, so this person will do considering they are white like me and tick other boxes".


You've been trying to do that since your first reply on the issue.

I'm challenging the suspect foundations upon which I perceive your viewpoint to be built. I'm very tolerant of differing viewpoints and they make the world much more interesting. I have no problem whatsoever respecting viewpoints opposing my own. The only reason I'm persistent or unrelenting with yourself is because I sense gross and willful hypocrisy/double standards. If your position was at least consistent, we'd not be having this argument.


The right that they be respected for starters.

The right?... You're one to talk of rights. I don't have to respect your views at all, although I might have a greater degree of respect for them - no matter how oddly/willfully repressed, prosaic, stagnant, incurious, uncritical and brazenly unsavoury I find them - if you weren't so evasive and disingenuous.


I never volunteered for the debate whatsoever, I came in to discuss various aspects of Russia and Russian culture. But when someone here says the country should face "sanctions" for adopting mild, traditional family friendly policies, I can't let that go. It's one of the few Russian government policies I fully support.

To be clear, it wasn't me who advocated sanctions, but "not letting it go" was volunteering for an argument. As you like to say, you can't have it both ways.


I say that tearing up the traditional marital/family unit, as this country is presently trying to do, all under the pretence of "equality", is far more damaging to society. Especially to their offspring who are/will have serious issues with their identity in the future, and will (through no fault of their own) also have to deal with a lifetime of comment and discrimination for being different to the rest of the population.

You'd nearly mislead us into thinking you were genuinely concerned... Damaging to society how exactly? I'd appreciate something concrete. Have you got any substance whatsoever to back up your prejudice? And what "serious issues with their identity" will they "inevitably" suffer? Same-sex couples are perfectly well-able to raise healthy, well-rounded and socially-functioning individuals. The only reason they might have to endure lifetimes of comment and discrimination is because of the existence of intrusive and closed minds like your own. And whose fault is that? You're not going to shift blame onto their parents, are you, for your intolerance? Anyway, nobody is trying to "tear up the traditional marital/family unit" to which you're so obsessively attached. Those who wish to commit to legally-supported heterosexual relations remain fully entitled to do so.


This is a different take from the previous example. The above is not state policy, but local culture. In that part of the world, the man has his clearly defined, traditional role in life, and the woman hers. And as in Russia, society by and large is content with that set up.

Jesus. Just answer the question.


In our society, women constantly complain over equal pay. But is that discrimination or the realisation that men in general are more committed to their careers, work longer hours than women, and are adequately compensated for it?

It can only be self-parody. That actually made me laugh out loud, because my brain just won't let me even begin to believe that you're not on a wind-up. You're outrageous.

[peadar1987]

This is a different take from the previous example. The above is not state policy, but local culture. In that part of the world, the man has his clearly defined, traditional role in life, and the woman hers. And as in Russia, society by and large is content with that set up.

Fine, Saudi Arabia, it's local culture and state policy and contemporary that women aren't allowed to drive cars. Right or wrong? I'm looking forward to seeing how you're going to evade the question this time.



In our society, women constantly complain over equal pay. But is that discrimination or the realisation that men in general are more committed to their careers, work longer hours than women, and are adequately compensated for it?

No, it's discrimination. Women get paid less for the same work, and multiple studies have proven that being a woman negatively affects your chances of promotion and pay rises, even with all other things being equal.



I say that tearing up the traditional marital/family unit, as this country is presently trying to do, all under the pretence of "equality", is far more damaging to society. Especially to their offspring who are/will have serious issues with their identity in the future, and will (through no fault of their own) also have to deal with a lifetime of comment and discrimination for being different to the rest of the population.


Tearing up the traditional religious fabric of the UK is damaging to society. Especially to the young catholics who will have serious issues with their identity in the future, and will (through no fault of their own) also have to deal with a lifetime of comment and discrimination for being different to the rest of the population. Better that Westminster adopts mild, traditional, pro-protestant policies like banning the public celebration of Mass, for everybody's good.

Do you see what I did there?

[Spudulika]

What do you do for a living spuds, if I may be so bold?

Until the end of 2013 I was working full-time in sports (mainly tennis, football, hockey) but just got worn out by it. Right now I'm doing 2 things, working with sports media in Russia and for a food company (sounds weird I know). Though in the bit of time I have to spare I'm consulting with different sports clubs.

[Spudulika]

Another piece on why Putin is so dangerous.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11431850/Inside-the-mind-of-Vladimir-Putin.html

The bits about Putin just stealing stuff are pretty mental. Overall it's little wonder that the Baltic nations are very nervous about what will happen next.

It says much for the telegraph that they can still produce such garbage! Kraft said that it was a joke, that Putin gave him back the ring. The Guggenheim story was a fantasy. And yesterday the same newspaper went full Irish Indo on the Kabaeva story, without any facts or interest. They try to spin the claim that Kabaeva has given birth to his child, yet they don't mention that if so, it wouldn't be their first.

Ultimately this kind of trashy reporting does nothing in Russia. The local media are controlled by the Kremlin which echoes the views of the people and it is very difficult to find genuine anti-Putin sentiment here (save for 1 colleague of mine who is very forthright). But when the leaders of the opposition that are lauded by the west are Nemtsov and Navalny, and the west conveniently forgets that also with that bunch of eejits are Putin's god daughter Sobchak and her ex Yashin, both of whom are thoroughly corrupted and so far from the average babushka that it's totes hilaire (yes, I read the last ROCK book recently).

Putin and his ilk are a dodgy lot, like Cameron and his HSBC buddies, or Obama and the multinationals, or Enda and his advisors. The "west" made Putin and made sure Yeltsin put him in power, now....

[Spudulika]

Had to endure the most insane and hypocritical build up to Russia's version of Paddys Day - Day of Victory! When I first was in Russia for Pobeda Day it was 2006 and honestly, it was actually quite okay. There was almost a bit of balance and while they had the usual measure of war movies, patriotic prog's etc, they had more coverage of ailing veterans and what was wrong in the country. Also, the celebrations were very inclusive and (unless I'm totally wrong) it was in 2005 or 2006 that George Bush was sitting next to VVP at the march/drive past.

Last September/October a new decree was enforced (nobody knows for sure as it was only announced publicly in November) to teach ALL children in state education the history of the war, to educate them on the dangers of fascism and how they need to be ready to stand up to fascists at any time. Until 30 years ago WWII (1941-45) was only taught in history class to children 10 years and older. 20 years ago it was 12 and older. Now it starts from the 1st class in kindergarden, 3 years of age! On FridayI had my 5 year old singing (to the tune of the Imperial march from Star Wars), "we'll ambush the fascists, we're ready to fight, we'll fight the fascists". The same kid was bawling his eyes out saying he didn't want to die in the war with the fascists as they're "again at our borders".

And last week the last remaining newspapers who dared to comment or publish articles of note were sold to one of VVP's managers. One of them, the Moscow Times, was not always a good read, or well written, but it was brave and interesting. But since the recent law over media ownership - no more than 20% of any media company can be foreign owned - means that foreign investors can't do a thing to make it work.

Hell hand basket spring to mind.

[Spudulika]

Very strange events in Russia the last few days. A big fuss broke out about a 17 year old girl being hitched to a "middle aged" married man in Chechnya. Apparently they've been dating a year and she's "happy". However it is against the law to be married at 17 or practice polygamy. It's done the rounds with HRW but now the children's ombudsman, a creep called Astakhov, is saying that we really shouldn't interfere in the operations of another religion. This has stirred people more than the recent escaping almost free with a billion roubles (50million euros) for a 34 year old mistress of the Minister of Defence, who was "duped" by her into organising the transfer of 3 times this amount from Min Def accounts.

[IsMiseSean]

I was in Moscow a few weeks ago having a look around. The military propaganda seems to be everywhere, I can't even understand Russian but it always seemed to be in your face. Even had the pleasure of witnessing the full might of the Russian military parading through Red Square. I found out afterwards it was a practice run for Victory Day.
Maybe it was the time of year I was there, but they seem to be reaching the same levels as the American military patriotism nonsense now...

[Spudulika]

I was in Moscow a few weeks ago having a look around. The military propaganda seems to be everywhere, I can't even understand Russian but it always seemed to be in your face. Even had the pleasure of witnessing the full might of the Russian military parading through Red Square. I found out afterwards it was a practice run for Victory Day.
Maybe it was the time of year I was there, but they seem to be reaching the same levels as the American military patriotism nonsense now...

Sean, you should have given me a shout :-)

It has calmed mightily the last few days, but there seems to be a sense of doom around the place. And people are, now, openly speaking about the crap the government is and how they are playing games. While many jumped on board the victory fervour with every media outlet pumping it up and celebs running around commenting and telling us that it's right to remember and celebrate (very Ireland in a way), quite a few people who were borderline Putinites, suddenly saw how tourists and especially Ukranians were being demonised. Not alone that, but the introduction of "patriotism classes" from kids aged 3.....lots of parents in my son's kindergarden took their kids out for all of May, and probably until next year.

ps What were you doing, apart from "having a look around"?

[IsMiseSean]

Haha I should have given you a shout Spud, I could have done with a English speaking drinking buddy at times :D
Nothing but having a look, it's a city I've always wanted to see. I couldn't make it in 2011 when we played Russia.
I had 3 full days there, which mainly consisted of getting lost on the metro. I got to see all the sites though. I really enjoyed the Fallen Monument Park, had a good laugh getting selfies with Lenin & the lads :cool:
I enjoyed it but my non existent Russian & the local's lack of English or reluctance to speak it made things very difficult at times.

[Spudulika]

Monument park, next to the art museum and river? I went there eyars ago and it was just something different! The old Dzerzhinsky statue is a bit sad, and they love making up rumours that he'll be back in Lubyanka soon!

The metro is way better than it used to be, but for a first timer you did well to survive! And you got out before the horrendous stench begins. They turn off hot water (and often water) in the summer, so you really get a full on sensual assault each day, Monday's being the worst! It's gives a complete slap in the gob to the lie that Russian women are the most beautiful in the world.

Moscow is nice for a few days, but for craic and drinking, and friendly locals, you have to get away. Down south, Voronezh, Rostov, Krasnodar, are great.

Next time!

[Spudulika]

Meanwhile, this weekend Russia made it to the Ice Hockey final, and beat a young Waterford lad in the semi's! Anyway, the depth of stupidity of the commentators and presentation would make Sky or BT sport, or heaven forbid even BBC, look good! And worse, the hockey was used to ramp up the madness in Ukraine!

And to top it all, when the Canadian anthem was being played after the final (as is tradition) the Russians left the ice. It was a real display of no class, but not much more was expected from what goes on with the team (especially in this championship). Online reaction was surprising, the team were slaughtered for their petulance and lack of grace. Very unusual in Russia, but then again, I'm only reading sports sites.

[Spudulika]

3 very interesting pieces of news from Russia that are worth looking at for anyone wanting a cry and laugh!

1. Nightwolves. An odd collection of lads better suited to the Blue Oyster (mates of Putin and Kadyrov). They were the ones who wanted to "Ride on Berlin" to celebrate 70 years of victory. Anyway, it seems they were granted a bit lump of land near Sevastapol to build a sports and recreation area for youth and bikers. At at 99.9% discount of course. It was land confiscated from a Ukranian oligarch (who also happens to be a deputy in Kiev). The Mayor (a Russian who was for independence) was told not to give it and Mr. Chaly, his name, refused to sign it over. The head of the bike gang rolled up on his Harley (patriot that he is) and with a loud speaker called him out for a fight to decide if he should have the land or not! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdWcQDAuPEU

2. What happens if you're drunk, on the phone, speeding, lose control of your car and drive into a bus shelter and hit two people? Why you check the damage to your car and call your Mam to tell her what happened and to get you out of trouble. And of course, when you are going to face jail time you get yourself knocked up and don't do a single day in jail and of the 14 years sentence you are sentenced to 2.5 years, but actually don't serve any at all, but are "amnestied" because of the great 70 year victory over facism! So 1 dead Granny, a permanently disabled daughter and suffering family - and you aruge down to paying a mere 10% in compensation (just under 4,000euros) and even argue about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdWcQDAuPEU (NSFW - our hero is in a $6000 white fur coat)

3. You embezzle tens of millions of dollars from the Min. Defence with your Minister married boyfriend, he is arrested on camera - in the apartment with you, with happens to be next door to his family apartment. He turns states evidence and claims that you twisted his mind, bewitched him and made him does all these things. You hire a PR firm to develop your image. Get plastic surgery, hand back 75% of the money you stole (the rest has disappeared) and you release pop videos, promos of your art work, and you get a reduced sentence.

Yip, gotta love Russia! Rivalling the USA/UK in hypocrisy and dodginess tm.

[Spudulika]

Couple of brilliantly wonderful pieces:

Putin now at 89% popularity. 37% of Russian believe LGBT's can be cured.
Russian TD, member of ruling party, wants companies who did business with fascist regimes in WWII to disclose this information in their adverts. Same gentleman drives a Merc, his wife drives a BMW.
Authorities cracked down on Yoga classes because they accuse it of being a cult!
23 yr old son of ex-Moscow Governor killed, along with other golden youth, when their Porsche 911 was sliced in 2 when hitting a billboard. They were doing over 150kmph in heavy rain. Driver alread had more than 30 speeding fines in 2015.

And friend of murderous dictator and Arsenal owner pays Cappello's overdue wages.

[SkStu]

watched a Vice special last week where Shane Smith travelled to Ukraine, Russia and spoke with high ranking members of the Russian government. Very much focused on Cold War v2.0 and the role of NATO in suppressing Russian power as well as delving into the Eastern Ukraine issues. Fascinating stuff to be honest and, while im no fan of the Russian lunatic fringe, it is difficult not to agree with the majority of the points that Russia made with respect to the role of the US and NATO in the deterioration of the relationships between the two countries since the 90's (the NATO bombing of Belgrade being seen as the main catalyst for increased soviet paranoia). Anyone with an interest in the situation should check it out and those who are more informed than I am of the broader global political landscape should let me know what they thought!

The world is fooked lads!