Big Bad Bears - Russia and 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?...

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?...

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 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 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/ma...one-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.

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!

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.

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!

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".

[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/worl...mir-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/worl...mir-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....