Randomness thread, part two.

[Poopadoop]

^ True story.

[oskar]

It's not. It's just that economic migrants don't share the same rights as refugees, which is why many economic migrants pretend to be refugees.

You sure are winning 100% of the arguments we're not having. This wasn't your claim. You said economic migrants come, pretending to be refugees, to collect welfare checks which are 10x what they would earn for honest work in their country. A minimum wage job in Honduras pays $8000 annually. Skilled work wages seem comparable to poorer european countries. Idk what the upper end of welfare is in the US but I doubt it's 80k annually. On top of that, employment numbers for immigrants and refugees hardly support your lazy fake refugee theory.

You accused me of racism. Yet you can't tell me which race I'm discriminating against. It's a bit rich for you to mock my coherence.

I called what you said a racist trope, which it is.

[oskar]

Correct.

Has "ding ding ding" run its course?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Even if ong's right about economic migrants claiming to be refugees when they're not, which seems to me to be 100% likely to be true now, and to have been true for the entire history of human migration, then so what?

So what?

Sometimes desperate people do desperate things. Other times desperate people cling onto their sense of civility perhaps to their own detriment. Treating all migrants like they're one or the other is a mistake on many levels.
Dealing with the task of separating honest migrants from dishonest ones simply has to be something with long historical roots.

What's new and different and problematic about it, now?
The media coverage?
The ratings whoring that turns any mundane human affair into a threat to national security?
That's where my guesses lie.


How freaking weak is your sense of your own culture that some migrants will swoop in and show you waaay better ways to do things. People have to choose the change, you know. You can't make me eat Hallal any more than you can make me eat Kosher. Sure, if I want a top-notch hot dog, then I'm going to get a Kosher dog. OK. You win. By making better products that I like more than other products, you've converted me to Kosher-dog-ism. Sometimes. Other times, I'm Allaha Admiral Ackbar for some tasty Shawarma or Falafel. Then other times, I have to ogle a few choice babes and eat some Linguine Alfredo while screamin "viva Itiliano."

Damn those cultures invading my American life!!!!


I can't speak for the UK, but the idea that any number of Muslims living in any proximity to an American Christian is going to convert the Christians to Islam is just ... what? Have you see how fanatical American Christians are? One Jewish owned store doesn't put up Christmas decorations and it's a War on Christmas.
IDK. Maybe UK Christians are just not that into Christ. lol

[Poopadoop]

I can't speak for the UK, but the idea that any number of Muslims living in any proximity to an American Christian is going to convert the Christians to Islam is just ... what? Have you see how fanatical American Christians are? One Jewish owned store doesn't put up Christmas decorations and it's a War on Christmas.
IDK. Maybe UK Christians are just not that into Christ. lol

Tbf, I think his argument was not that we were going to be 'converted' so much as 'overwhelmed by numbers'. Which could theoretically happen anywhere there's immigration. And from there it's just one step to becoming the Saudi Arabia of the West, because in Ong's tinfoil-hat world every single muslim prefers Sharia Law to democracy.

Right now there are about 3 million muslims in the UK, or about 5% of the population. Just to put things in context. Oh, and someone sensible has actually responded to the idea that we would become a majority muslim nation by 2050 (lol).

Assuming patterns of net immigration do not change significantly, the Pew Forum thinks that there will be just over 5.5 million British Muslims, representing 8.2 per cent of the UK population, by 2030.

FactCheck wouldn’t bet on the British Muslim population ever topping 10 per cent, let alone 50 per cent.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...jority-by-2050

But of course that's just the liberal media trying to impress us with facts rather than using hysteria.

[Poopadoop]

trope

Nice word, had to look that up.

[OngBonga]

^ True story.

It actually is. Highly paraphrased, but that was the meat and veg of a conversation on the BBC forum. Could have been a troll though.

This wasn't your claim. You said economic migrants come, pretending to be refugees, to collect welfare checks which are 10x what they would earn for honest work in their country.

I've also said since that I was talking hyperbole. Why in fuck's name do you take me so literally? At least poop knows that I'm largely just talking out of my arse. You think I'm serious in everything I say, even when I admit I'm not being serious. You'll just say I'm playing the "lol troll" card and sit there thinking that I actually believe every word I say.

Many economic migrants do pretend to be refugees. Not all, and I'd be guessing if I even tried to put a percentage on it. Many do come here because they know they can get benefits, which is a much better life than what they had before. Obviously my "10x" comment is hyperbole, since people come from different countries with different standards of living.

Is it your job to be outraged? Because you're fucking good at it, I hope you're paid well.

A minimum wage job in Honduras pays $8000 annually. Skilled work wages seem comparable to poorer european countries. Idk what the upper end of welfare is in the US but I doubt it's 80k annually.

Fuck me you really did go balls out taking my comments literally.

I called what you said a racist trope, which it is.

Which race?

[OngBonga]

So what?

Forgive me for preferring honest migrants to dishonest ones.

"Hey, I want to come to your country to have a better life.This is what I have to offer."

^ good

Sometimes desperate people do desperate things.

Does this excuse hold up in court?

Treating all migrants like they're one or the other is a mistake on many levels.

Yes, it is. That's why I prefer to treat each migrant by his or her own merits. I'd prefer to show favour towards skilled, educated and law abiding migrants. Like poop. If you had a choice of letting either me or poop come and live in America, who's the better option? The guy who's skilled and employed? Or the lazy fucker who doesn't have a job? What if I'm brown skinned? Does it then become a matter of racism if you still prefer poop?

How freaking weak is your sense of your own culture that some migrants will swoop in and show you waaay better ways to do things. People have to choose the change, you know. You can't make me eat Hallal any more than you can make me eat Kosher. Sure, if I want a top-notch hot dog, then I'm going to get a Kosher dog. OK. You win. By making better products that I like more than other products, you've converted me to Kosher-dog-ism. Sometimes. Other times, I'm Allaha Admiral Ackbar for some tasty Shawarma or Falafel. Then other times, I have to ogle a few choice babes and eat some Linguine Alfredo while screamin "viva Itiliano."

What are you talking about? Your rambling here puts me to shame.

I can't speak for the UK, but the idea that any number of Muslims living in any proximity to an American Christian is going to convert the Christians to Islam is just ... what

This isn't what happens. Do you know what happens when Muslims vastly outnumber Christians? The Christians get persecuted, not converted.

Granted, that's a very long way off, but that's no reason to not be concerned. "Well I'll be dead by the time it's a realproblem" isn't an acceptable reason to think "fuck it, let them in".

Have you see how fanatical American Christians are?

How many homosexuals have been thrown off buildings by Christians in America? They might well be batshit, but they don't seem to be very dangerous.

[Poopadoop]

when Muslims vastly outnumber Christians? The Christians get persecuted, not converted.

Granted, that's a very long way off,

Only if you believe 'extremely unlikely to ever happen' is the same as a 'very long way off'.

How many homosexuals have been thrown off buildings by Christians in America?

How many women who are in danger of dying from their pregnancy are denied abortions by Islam?

[Poopadoop]

It actually is. Highly paraphrased, but that was the meat and veg of a conversation on the BBC forum. Could have been a troll though.

So you met a person with different political views than yours who's illogical? Is that what you're shocked by?

Welcome to my world.

[OngBonga]

Only if you believe 'extremely unlikely to ever happen' is the same as a 'very long way off'.

Poop doesn't understand how population growth works.

How many women who are in danger of dying from their pregnancy are denied abortions by Islam?

Are you serious? Who do you suppose decides if an Islamic woman has an abortion or not?

[Poopadoop]

Poop doesn't understand how population growth works.

Ong didn't read the link I posted that shows why the argument based on fertility rates is specious.

Are you serious?

Yes I am serious.

Who do you suppose decides if an Islamic woman has an abortion or not?

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...omen-1.7271623

According to this, the worst place to live for a woman who needs an abortion is not Iran or Saudi Arabia, but Alabama.

[Poopadoop]

the same person who drafted Alabama’s anti-abortion bill — an activist named Eric Johnston who founded the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition— also drafted its anti-Sharia law in 2014, arguing that “Sharia law violates women's rights.”

Oh, the hypocrisy.

[Poopadoop]

So Ong, should America ban Christians from immigrating there?

[oskar]

Is it your job to be outraged? Because you're fucking good at it, I hope you're paid well.

You and spoon are reading me very wrong.
I understand that 10x is hyperbole, but if you say 10x when it's actually less, then that's no longer hyperbole, that's just a lie that you're trying to build an argument on.

Which race?

You are entirely unaware that lazy mexican is a common stereotype?

[oskar]

[OngBonga]

Ong didn't read the link I posted that shows why the argument based on fertility rates is specious.

Nope I didn't. Link me again, should be good for a laugh. I'm curious to see how it can be that one smaller demographic can have children at a higher rate than another, and not eventually become dominant.

According to this, the worst place to live for a woman who needs an abortion is not Iran or Saudi Arabia, but Alabama.

Ad blocked. I'm curious though, do you think denying abortion is on equal footing with throwing gays off buildings? Because that's why you cited abortion. Also, can an Alabama woman get an abortion in another state?

So Ong, should America ban Christians from immigrating there?

I don't think so, but America can ban who they like.

[OngBonga]

I understand that 10x is hyperbole, but if you say 10x when it's actually less, then that's no longer hyperbole, that's just a lie that you're trying to build an argument on.

No, it's hyperbole, ie an exaggerated statement which isn't meant to be taken literally.

You are entirely unaware that lazy mexican is a common stereotype?

When did I call Mexicans lazy?

[OngBonga]

Also, since when is "Mexican" a race?

[Poopadoop]

do you think denying abortion is on equal footing with throwing gays off buildings?

Are you suggesting they routinely throw gays off buildings somewhere? Or just that you saw a video on youtube and assumed that's the law throughout the Islamic world (it isn't)?

And yeah, it's hard to compare ending a life with ruining two lives. Not sure how to do the math on that one.

[OngBonga]

Ruining two lives by denying an abortion? Interesting. I'm not taking sides on the abortion debate, but one could argue that denying an abortion saves a life.

Are you suggesting they routinely throw gays off buildings somewhere?

Yes, at least for a time. The caliphate that ISIS created. Now the question begs... is that pure Islam?

Or just that you saw a video on youtube and assumed that's the law throughout the Islamic world (it isn't)?

I know it's not the law across the Islamic world. They just get "standard" death penalty in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Sudan and Nigeria, while just getting prison time in Qatar, Algeria, Uzbekistan and the Maldives.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam)

[OngBonga]

This map represents public opinion regarding LGBT rights.

[Poopadoop]

Seems like a pretty sophisticated and detailed map - two colours plus grey. Is this something your friend drew?

[Poopadoop]

Ruining two lives by denying an abortion? Interesting. I'm not taking sides on the abortion debate, but one could argue that denying an abortion saves a life.

That is their argument yeah. Doesn't seem to sit well with proponents of women's rights though (i.e., women).

Yes, at least for a time. The caliphate that ISIS created. Now the question begs... is that pure Islam?

The only question being begged here is what you mean by 'pure'? When Islamic theology takes hold somewhere as a form of government, it doesn't throw gays off buildings. So if your argument is that what would happen if the UK became Sharia then it seems unlikely. Although the point is moot since the UK is not going to become Sharia.

I know it's not the law across the Islamic world. They just get "standard" death penalty in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Sudan and Nigeria, while just getting prison time in Qatar, Algeria, Uzbekistan and the Maldives.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam)

It's bad treatment, no doubt about it. Good thing there'll never be such laws in the UK.

[OngBonga]

Poop didn't click the wikipedia link I posted.

Here's the legend...
Blue - States which supported the LGBT rights declaration in the General Assembly or on the Human Rights Council in 2008 or 2011
Red - States which supported an opposing declaration in 2008 and continued their opposition in 2011
Dark grey - States which did not support either declaration
Light grey - South Sudan, which was not a member of the United Nations in 2008
Black - States that are not voting members of the United Nations

[Poopadoop]

Oh good to know. So these are states' policies, not public opinion as you said in OP.

[OngBonga]

That is their argument yeah. Doesn't seem to sit well with proponents of women's rights though (i.e., women).

Haha citing "women's rights" while debating abortion and Islam.

The only question being begged here is what you mean by 'pure'?

Same as what most people mean by "fundamentalist". The Islam that Mohammed practiced and preached.

When Islamic theology takes hold somewhere as a form of government, it doesn't throw gays off buildings.

No, they persecute them in different ways.

So if your argument is that what would happen if the UK became Sharia then it seems unlikely

You're right, they probably wouldn't get thrown off buildings. They'd either get lethal injection, or be jailed.

Although the point is moot since the UK is not going to become Sharia.

It might if we a) continue to import Islam, and b) non-Islamic families continue to breed at a lower rate.

It's bad treatment, no doubt about it. Good thing there'll never be such laws in the UK.

Probably not, I mean we're more likely to have a civil war before it actually happens.

[OngBonga]

Oh good to know. So these are states' policies, not public opinion as you said in OP.

Good catch, that image is in the "public opinion" section of the article.

Try this (same article)

Attachment 1162

[Poopadoop]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam)

This link I ddin't click before shows "penalties" for same-sex intercourse.

Are a lot of people getting caught having gay sex in these places? I'm guessing not.

The Koran singles out sex between men as a transgression, but uniquely in the Islamic holy book, proscribes no punishment. And there must be four independent witnesses to the act of anal intercourse (all other forms of gay sex seem to have escaped Allah’s attention). So it’s just a warning not to have sex in the middle of the street.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/...han-you-think/

So basically unless you're butt-humping another guy in a public park, you can be as gay as you want.

Frankly, I'd prefer not to see two men kissing in public never mind fucking, and respect the wishes of whoever doesn't want to see two straight people fucking in public either.

[OngBonga]

This link I ddin't click before shows "penalties" for same-sex intercourse.

Yes it does. What's your point? That's homosexuality is only ok if gay people don't have sex?

The Muslim world is more tolerant of homosexuality than you think

That's the headline of the article you just linked. It seems to be in direct contrast to what Wikipedia articles suggest.

By the way, Egypt is not "the Muslim world".

[Poopadoop]

I guess you can always have a secret abortion too. A little harder to hide the fact you're no longer pregnant from nosy officials than the fact that you took one up the ass the night before though.

[Poopadoop]

Yes it does. What's your point? That's homosexuality is only ok if gay people don't have sex?

No, my point is that if you don't get caught by four independent witnesses, you don't have to worry.

That's the headline of the article you just linked. It seems to be in direct contrast to what Wikipedia articles suggest.

There's the law and then there's if and how the law is enforced. There's lot of minor laws I break all the time, like speeding, etc. - i don't get punished because I don't get caught.

By the way, Egypt is not "the Muslim world".

The author suggested similar attitudes held across the Arab world.

[OngBonga]

Oh yeah, abortion.

Fucking hell poop.

What's public opinion amongst Christians regarding abortion?

[Poopadoop]

btw, when I had a Persian gf, I went to Iran and boned her, which was punishable by death if I got caught. Yet no-one else saw it and she wasn't about to report both of us so here I am alive and well.

[OngBonga]

No, my point is that if you don't get caught by four independent witnesses, you don't have to worry.

Right, so it's ok to have laws that say you can't have gay sex, the responsibility is on gay people to not get caught. You're ok with that?

There's the law and then there's if and how the law is enforced. There's lot of minor laws I break all the time, like speeding, etc. - i don't get punished because I don't get caught.

Once again, you seem ok with the law that says you can't have gay sex, instead you think what people should do is break the law and not get caught. I'm assuming that if you get caught speeding,you'll put your hands up, say "fair cop", and pay the fine. Is it a fair cop if four people burst into a gay man's bedroom and witness gay sex?

The author suggested similar attitudes held across the Arab world.

That author is speaking his opinion. I'll stick with wikipedia articles citing UN studies, tyvm.

[OngBonga]

btw, when I had a Persian gf, I went to Iran and boned her, which was punishable by death if I got caught. Yet no-one else saw it and she wasn't about to report both of us so here I am alive and well.

Do you think such a law is fair? Had you been caught, are you accepting your death penalty like you accept a speeding fine and a couple of points on your licence?

Thought not.

[Poopadoop]

Oh yeah, abortion.

Fucking hell poop.

What's public opinion amongst Christians regarding abortion?

What's your point? We were talking about laws created by religious nuts. I think if anyting it's worse if your laws are passed by religious nuts who were elected democratically, since it suggests they had a public mandate.

I think a good place to take the discussion is to consider not just what laws on the books are in different places but whether and to what extent they're enforced. If you have to be caught having buttsex in public by four people before it becomes an issue then that strikes me as pretty lax enforcement. They're not just saying 'you look gay, off the building with you!'

[Poopadoop]

Right, so it's ok to have laws that say you can't have gay sex, the responsibility is on gay people to not get caught. You're ok with that?

Not what I said. Gay people should be able to be openly gay to any point short of public fornicating.

What I said was the laws aren't as bad as they sound because they're rarely enforced.

Is it a fair cop if four people burst into a gay man's bedroom and witness gay sex?

Lol, if this happens it has to be extremely rare.

That author is speaking his opinion.

Apparently his opinion is based on what he's seen and where's he's been, unlike some people.

I'll stick with wikipedia articles that confirm my biases, and interpret them the way I like

fyp

[Poopadoop]

Do you think such a law is fair?

Fair inasmuch as it is the law of the land and applied equally to everyone yes.

Had you been caught, are you accepting your death penalty like you accept a speeding fine and a couple of points on your licence?

This is what makes death penalty sex much more exciting than speeding.

If you know the law and you break it, you don't really have much defense if you get caught. I wasn't going to win an argument with the Supreme Court of Iran that their law was prudish and they should change it lol.

[OngBonga]

What's your point? We were talking about laws created by religious nuts. I think if anyting it's worse if your laws are passed by religious nuts who were elected democratically, since it suggests they had a public mandate.

Ok, fair point. Now demonstrate that such laws are widespread.

If you have to be caught having buttsex in public by four people before it becomes an issue then that strikes me as pretty lax enforcement. They're not just saying 'you look gay, off the building with you!'

Well let's first point out that the throwing gays off buildings refers to ISIS, a group of nutjobs who would not give a fuck if someone is merely suspected of being gay. I don't think ISIS were implementing the "four witnesses" method.

What I said was the laws aren't as bad as they sound because they're rarely enforced.

It's still persecution, though, isn't it? And I'm finding it difficult to find out how "rarely enforced" they are. Do some googling and find something, I've got some gardening to do.

Lol, if this happens it has to be extremely rare.

It probably doesn't happen. More likely is four people will say they witnessed it, when actually they didn't.

Apparently his opinion is based on what he's seen and where's he's been, unlike some people.

Apparently. Or it could be liberal bollocks.

fyp

You'll look for articles from single authors that confirms your bias.

[OngBonga]

Fair inasmuch as it is the law of the land and applied equally to everyone yes.

Fucking hell dude. Nice manipulation of the word "fair".

Let's use a different word that actually means the same as fair... are such laws just?

If you know the law and you break it, you don't really have much defense if you get caught. I wasn't going to win an argument with the Supreme Court of Iran that their law was prudish and they should change it lol.

So you'd say "fair enough" and not even bother to contact Canadian or British authorities, while attempting to bring in media awareness? Fair play to you.

[Poopadoop]

btw, I'm not defending Iran at all. It's an awful place to live. The women all have to wear scarves in public and be covered from neck to ankle, even if its 40C outside. Men can't wear shorts. You just keep your head down and try not to attract attention in public. Once you're in your house though, no-one bothers you. You wear whatever clothes you want and do what you want. The people I stayed with had satellite TV (illegal, but not enforced), beer and wine (illegal but available on the black market), pretty much anything you could get here except maybe pork. So yeah, any of them could have gone to jail at any time if they'd gotten caught. That's sorta my point though - those laws exist, but it's not like the secret police suddenly show up at your house and demand to see what's in your fridge or check who is having sex.

So it's bad, but not as bad as it sounds on your wiki page.

p.s. The funniest thing I saw there was the old US Embassy, which now has a big sign on it saying 'Home of horrible pig evil spies' or something like that. Then on the bottom it said 'Death to America'. I guess they're not big fans of the ole US of A lol.

[Poopadoop]

Fucking hell dude. Nice manipulation of the word "fair".

Let's use a different word that actually means the same as fair... are such laws just?

Just means the same thing as fair.

If what you're trying to ask is whether I think it's a good law and agree with it, then the answer is no.

So you'd say "fair enough" and not even bother to contact Canadian or British authorities, while attempting to bring in media awareness? Fair play to you.

I'd do whatever I could to save my life, but I wouldn't like my chances very much. Sorta academic though as the chance of getting caught was somwhere between tiny and none.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, fair point. Now demonstrate that such laws are widespread.

It would appear anti-abortion laws are being considered in a number of US states. Don't have the facts to hand, but I don't think Alabama is just an anomaly in that respect; they're just the first one to pass such a strict law. One of the Americans probably can answer that better than I.

Well let's first point out that the throwing gays off buildings refers to ISIS, a group of nutjobs who would not give a fuck if someone is merely suspected of being gay. I don't think ISIS were implementing the "four witnesses" method.

So a bunch of prick fanatics do something in the name of God. Sorry if I'm not worried about the same thing catching on here.

It's still persecution, though, isn't it? And I'm finding it difficult to find out how "rarely enforced" they are. Do some googling and find something, I've got some gardening to do.

Technically yes, but it's persecution that is mostly for show.

It probably doesn't happen. More likely is four people will say they witnessed it, when actually they didn't.

Seems unlikely four people are going to conspire to railroad someone to the electric chair. Could happen though I guess.

Apparently. Or it could be liberal bollocks.

To what end? To make you think Egypt is a good holiday destination for gays, as long as you don't fly the rainbow flag?

You'll look for articles from single authors that confirms your bias.

I just type in shit in google like you do. The difference is I don't stop after looking at one article from one side.

[OngBonga]

Iran is a unique case. Their government are awful, but the people are not. That'll be because they're Shia. Sadly, Shia are not the dominant Islamic sect. If they were, I don't think this would be such a problem.

Just means the same thing as fair.

Not in the context you're interpreting "fair".

Is it fair or just for the government to impose 90% tax on everyone? I would say no, that is not how I interpret the words "fair" or "just".

I'd do whatever I could to save my life, but I wouldn't like my chances very much. Sorta academic though as the chance of getting caught was somwhere between tiny and none.

You chances would be better than you think, you'd just have a horrible few months of being treated like a pig until international pressure became too much for Iran and they release and deport you, maybe in exchange for an Iranian prisoner.

Then on the bottom it said 'Death to America'.

Imagine if some scrawled on the Saudi embassy "Death to Saudi Arabia". Would that still be funny to you?

It would appear anti-abortion laws are being considered in a number of US states

We need to go further for the purpose of this discussion. You compared abortion laws to the Islamic persecution of homosexuality. You mentioned laws where women can't have an abortion even if it's a health issue for the woman in question, that's what needs to be widespread. If a state says a woman cannot have an abortion except in cases of health, rape and incest, then that's not really relevant.

So a bunch of prick fanatics do something in the name of God. Sorry if I'm not worried about the same thing catching on here.

I would prefer we didn't allow Islam to become dominant in our countries. Then we don't even get to find out if they'd treat homosexuals this way.

Technically yes, but it's persecution that is mostly for show.

If gay people can't be openly gay, they are being persecuted. How much they are being persecuted depends on the legal and social consequences of their behaviour. And it's a persecution we in the West have finally put into history. I don't particularly want to see us going back to the mid 1900's where homosexuals (such as Alan Turing) were convicted of a crime, or where gays are social outcasts.

Seems unlikely four people are going to conspire to railroad someone to the electric chair. Could happen though I guess.

It happens all the time. Not necessarily for homosexuality, but when it comes to blasphemy, also punishable by death, it happens a lot. Convictions are based on the word of witnesses.

To what end? To make you think Egypt is a good holiday destination for gays, as long as you don't fly the rainbow flag?

To promote Islam as a tolerant religion. Why anyone would do this is a mystery to me. It is patently false, and I'm not sure what the agenda is.

I just type in shit in google like you do. The difference is I don't stop after looking at one article from one side.

You don't? Funny, since I've never seen you post something that argues against your position and for mine. You're as unbalanced as I am.

[Poopadoop]

Not in the context you're interpreting "fair".

So you want to argue that the dictionary is wrong again? ok i guess...

Is it fair or just for the government to impose 90% tax on everyone?

Yes, the key word here is 'everyone'.

I would say no, that is not how I interpret the words "fair" or "just".

if you want to live in a world where you make up your own meanings for words, then good luck communicating with people.

You chances would be better than you think, you'd just have a horrible few months of being treated like a pig until international pressure became too much for Iran and they release and deport you, maybe in exchange for an Iranian prisoner.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm deciding whether to have sex in public in Iran with a single woman.

Imagine if some scrawled on the Saudi embassy "Death to Saudi Arabia". Would that still be funny to you?

If S.A. had fucked my country over for 100 years, installed and deposed leaders, and finally left me with an Ayatollah in charge, I'd probably think it was more apt than funny, but yeah.

We need to go further for the purpose of this discussion. You compared abortion laws to the Islamic persecution of homosexuality. You mentioned laws where women can't have an abortion even if it's a health issue for the woman in question, that's what needs to be widespread. If a state says a woman cannot have an abortion except in cases of health, rape and incest, then that's not really relevant.

Point is not whether religious based idiocy happens, we know it does. The point is you don't use the idiocy of some people who are religious to discrminate against everyone who happens to belong to that same broad religion.

I would prefer we didn't allow Islam to become dominant in our countries. Then we don't even get to find out if they'd treat homosexuals this way.

Like I said, there's no reason to think that's going to happen. Only tin-hat number-bending reasons. And I don't subscribe to those.

If gay people can't be openly gay, they are being persecuted. How much they are being persecuted depends on the legal and social consequences of their behaviour. And it's a persecution we in the West have finally put into history.

Officially, yes. Some people's behaviour is not exactly tolerant in that respect however. And some of those people are Christians.

So by your logic that we shouldn't allow immigration from places where batshit religions exist, then the US is out too now.

I don't particularly want to see us going back to the mid 1900's where homosexuals (such as Alan Turing) were convicted of a crime, or where gays are social outcasts.

Nor do you want to live in a place where women can get 10 years in prison for having an abortion I suspect.

It happens all the time. Not necessarily for homosexuality, but when it comes to blasphemy, also punishable by death, it happens a lot. Convictions are based on the word of witnesses.

Ong.jpg

Ok.

To promote Islam as a tolerant religion. Why anyone would do this is a mystery to me. It is patently false, and I'm not sure what the agenda is.

You have a theory for what they're doing but no idea as to why they would be doing it. Seems weak.

Maybe they're just trying to make the point that Islam is made up of many subsects with many different value systems, and not a monolithic evil as people like you seem to believe.

You don't? Funny, since I've never seen you post something that argues against your position and for mine. You're as unbalanced as I am.

You have. You must be repressing your memory.

[OngBonga]

So you want to argue that the dictionary is wrong again? ok i guess...

Nope, you are arguing this.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...y/english/fair

Key words are also "reasonable" and "right".

if you want to live in a world where you make up your own meanings for words, then good luck communicating with people.

No I don't want to live in this world, so stop doing it please.

[Poopadoop]

It's entirely subjective how you define reasonable, right or just. So something that seems fair to one person can be seen as unfair to another.

My interpretation of the word fair has the more objective value of being appllied equally to all. In that sense, the examples you gave are fair, as I pointed out.

So sorry but I don't accept your subjective opinion over mine. That's why you need to choose your words carefully.

[OngBonga]

If S.A. had fucked my country over for 100 years, installed and deposed leaders, and finally left me with an Ayatollah in charge, I'd probably think it was more apt than funny, but yeah.

Poor example, but that's my fault for saying Saudi Arabia instead of Iran. The West have indeed screwed Iran over, but not Saudi Arabia. We're allied to them,we buy their oil and sell them weapons.

Point is not whether religious based idiocy happens, we know it does. The point is you don't use the idiocy of some people who are religious to discrminate against everyone who happens to belong to that same broad religion.

A state refusing to allow migrants in is not discrimination, since it is not "unjust". A state may refuse entry to any non-native individual for any reason.

Officially, yes. Some people's behaviour is not exactly tolerant in that respect however. And some of those people are Christians.

We're doing a lot better than we did. It is illegal to discriminate against gay people.

So by your logic that we shouldn't allow immigration from places where batshit religions exist, then the US is out too now.

I'm sorry but no matter how much you keep saying this, I will not agree that Christianity is anywhere near as batshit as Islam. Maybe I'm lucky I live in the UK instead of USA.

Nor do you want to live in a place where women can get 10 years in prison for having an abortion I suspect.

No I don't. Is this federal law? Has anyone actually gone to jail in Alabama in recent times for having an abortion? Why didn't they seek an abortion in another state?

Ok.

Dude, do some research into that before posting "talking shit" memes.

You have a theory for what they're doing but no idea as to why they would be doing it. Seems weak.

Yeah, sorry I'm out of answers as to why we're so tolerant and welcoming of a batshit, intolerant religion. Any ideas as to why we do this would be tin hatty. Maybe it's a simple as importing socialist leaning voters, maybe it's more sinister and they want to replace white people with a demographic easier to control. Fuck knows.

[OngBonga]

It's entirely subjective how you define reasonable, right or just. So something that seems fair to one person can be seen as unfair to another.

My interpretation of the word fair has the more objective value of being appllied equally to all. In that sense, the examples you gave are fair, as I pointed out.

So sorry but I don't accept your subjective opinion over mine. That's why you need to choose your words carefully.

I think you're in the minority, interpreting fair as "treating everyone equally",without considering how reasonable and right such an action is.

[Poopadoop]

I think you're in the minority, interpreting fair as "treating everyone equally",without considering how reasonable and right such an action is.

If you understand a word can have several meanings, and some of those meanings are subjective, you need to be either clear that you're using the subjective meaning, or default to the objective meaning.

Even had I assumed you meant 'reasonable' or 'right' with the attendant moral connotations, I still could also have answered 'yes' because I simply had a different moral standard than you. It still wouldn't have been a wrong answer.

At that point, your only recourse would be to say 'we disagree then'. You couldn't tell me your morality was better than mine just because more people agreed with it where you live; there's no philosophy of ethics that says the majority is always right.

[Poopadoop]

Poor example, but that's my fault for saying Saudi Arabia instead of Iran. The West have indeed screwed Iran over, but not Saudi Arabia. We're allied to them,we buy their oil and sell them weapons.

Should we change it to 'death to Iran' then? I'm not sure I get your point.

A state refusing to allow migrants in is not discrimination, since it is not "unjust". A state may refuse entry to any non-native individual for any reason.

If a state claims freedom of religion under the law in its code of ethics (as I believe the UK does), then discrminates against certain people who want to emigrate to that state based on their religion, then that state is being inconsistent and self-contradictory.

We're doing a lot better than we did. It is illegal to discriminate against gay people.

Good.

I'm sorry but no matter how much you keep saying this, I will not agree that Christianity is anywhere near as batshit as Islam. Maybe I'm lucky I live in the UK instead of USA.

It's a special kind of crazy in parts of the US.

No I don't. Is this federal law? Has anyone actually gone to jail in Alabama in recent times for having an abortion? Why didn't they seek an abortion in another state?

That's the current law in Alabama as I understand it, and no, having your abortion in another state does not excuse you from the 10 year sentence.

Dude, do some research into that before posting "talking shit" memes.

I'd prefer to challenge you to show me the evidence.

Yeah, sorry I'm out of answers as to why we're so tolerant and welcoming of a batshit, intolerant religion. Any ideas as to why we do this would be tin hatty. Maybe it's a simple as importing socialist leaning voters, maybe it's more sinister and they want to replace white people with a demographic easier to control. Fuck knows.

lol 'they'.

Interesting that everything you don't agree with is part of some kind of sinister conspiracy. But, when you agree with something you read, there's no questions asked.

[OngBonga]

Even had I assumed you meant 'reasonable' or 'right' with the attendant moral connotations, I still could also have answered 'yes' because I simply had a different moral standard than you. It still wouldn't have been a wrong answer.

"Daddy that's not fair",
"Yes it is, I've docked both of your pocket money equally due to me losing a bet on a horse".

The caveats "reasonable" and "right" might be subjective, but that doesn't mean you can disregard them.

We're arguing about the word "fair" in the context of the persecution of homosexuals. Treating all gays in the same shitty way is not "fair" just because all are treated equally. It should be clear to you that "treating people equally" is an insufficient definition of "fair". It should also be obvious that by "fair", in the context I was using it, I was clearly referring to the reasonable nature of such laws, not exclusively the equality of such.

[MadMojoMonkey]

there's no philosophy of ethics that says the majority is always right.

Utilitarianism comes pretty damn close, and it's the primary code of ethics used in hospitals and care centers when it comes to all sorts of things. They're on a limited budget, and so every decision to save one life is a decision to not save another... that's a terrible razor's edge to stand on and the most popular recourse is to fall back on utilitarianism. I agree, BTW.

Utilitarianism in a nutshell = Do the most good for the most people, given the resources you have.

It's not exactly "the majority is right" but it is "catering to the majority is always right" which is pretty close.

When it's the primary ethical doctrine used in hospitals, it means that particular philosophy has a fairly great sway on who gets life and death.


Thoughts?

[OngBonga]

I'd prefer to challenge you to show me the evidence.

Here's one story that made the news over here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46040515

[Poopadoop]

Utilitarianism comes pretty damn close, and it's the primary code of ethics used in hospitals and care centers when it comes to all sorts of things. They're on a limited budget, and so every decision to save one life is a decision to not save another... that's a terrible razor's edge to stand on and the most popular recourse is to fall back on utilitarianism. I agree, BTW.

Utilitarianism in a nutshell = Do the most good for the most people, given the resources you have.

It's not exactly "the majority is right" but it is "catering to the majority is always right" which is pretty close.

When it's the primary ethical doctrine used in hospitals, it means that particular philosophy has a fairly great sway on who gets life and death.


Thoughts?

A bit. Utiliatarianism is about doing the most overall net good. That doesn't necessarily mean the majority is the group that benefits. You can punish everyone in the majority a little to benefit everyone in the minority a lot, if the sum of all the individual pluses and minuses ends up being positive (relative to some other option).

It's also chosen orthogonally to how popular the various options are. If the majority doesn't like being punished a little for the overall good, that's irrelevant. It's not about being democratic, it's about maximizing utility.

[Poopadoop]

It happens all the time.

Here's one story that made the news over here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46040515

Ong: This field is full of money.

Me: Show me.

Ong: Here's a 50p coin I found.

Me: I'll go get my metal detector. You wait here.

[Poopadoop]

"Daddy that's not fair",
....reasonable...

Your argument falls down again because you again have to take recourse to a subjective term with which I'm free to disagree and be no more right or wrong about it than you.

[OngBonga]

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you wanted me to sit here for hours, pulling up every story I could find.

You want to argue that I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. Have fun with that.

[OngBonga]

Your argument falls down again because you again have to take recourse to a subjective term with which I'm free to disagree and be no more right or wrong about it than you.

It doesn't matter that it's subjective. You're disregarding subjective aspects when they play an important role. You can say "I think it is fair, because there's nothing wrong with docking pocket money due to losing bets", but you can't argue that it's fair because nobody is any better placed than another to say whether it's reasonable to do so, therefore we completely disregard that aspect of the conversation.

By saying "that's reasonable", you're acknowledging that it's an important aspect of the definition. You haven't disregarded it, what you've done is taken reason into consideration, and made a determination.

[Poopadoop]

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you wanted me to sit here for hours, pulling up every story I could find.

If you were serious about supporting your argument, I'm sure you could come up more than one story.

You want to argue that I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. Have fun with that.

Ong.jpg

lol, right. Because like everythng else in your backwards world, you win an argument by making a claim you don't have evidence for.

[OngBonga]

If you think something is reasonable while another disagrees, you're disagreeing about whether something is fair, not whether the word "fair" is accurate.

If reason is subjective, so is fairness.

[OngBonga]

If you were serious about supporting your argument, I'm sure you could come up more than one story.

I could. Likewise, if you were serious about learning whether people get convicted of blasphemy based on the accounts of witnesses, you'd be googling it to see what else you can find.

[Poopadoop]

It doesn't matter that it's subjective.

Actually it does. It's the entire crux of the issue.

You're disregarding subjective aspects when they play an important role.

No, I'm defaulting to the objective definition that can be either right or wrong. As i said before 'it's fair inasmuch as it is applied equally to everyone' (or words to that effect).

You can say "I think it is fair, because there's nothing wrong with docking pocket money due to losing bets",

Subjective.

but you can't argue that it's fair because nobody is any better placed than another to say whether it's reasonable to do so,

Also subjective.

If I'm allowed one subjective opinion, surely I must be allowed another.

By saying "that's reasonable", you're acknowledging that it's an important aspect of the definition.

I didn't say laws against homosexuality were reasonable. I said they were fair inasmuch as they were applied equally to everyone. I even defined the word 'fair' more carefully for you. Not sure why you still want to argue it, but w/e.

You haven't disregarded it, what you've done is taken reason into consideration, and made a determination.

I haven't done that at all. Who are you talking about here? Please try to be clear when you write. Use more words if you need to.

[Poopadoop]

I could. Likewise, if you were serious about learning whether people get convicted of blasphemy based on the accounts of witnesses, you'd be googling it to see what else you can find.

I don't think there's anything to learn, that's my position.

If I were interested in learning why the Earth is flat, I could pursue that too. But I don't believe it, so I challenge anyone who makes such a claim to back it up with evidence.

So far you're at: "It looks flat from my window." You need to do better if you want me to join your club.

[OngBonga]

No, I'm defaulting to the objective definition...

No,you're stripping away subjective aspects of a definition to render a subjective word objective.

"Fair" is subjective, not objective.

[OngBonga]

I didn't say laws against homosexuality were reasonable. I said they were fair inasmuch as they were applied equally to everyone. I even defined the word 'fair' more carefully for you.

But you're using the word "fair" in an objective context, when the word itself is subjective.

[Poopadoop]

If you think something is reasonable while another disagrees, you're disagreeing about whether something is fair, not whether the word "fair" is accurate.

If reason is subjective, so is fairness.

I'll expalin this to you one last time then I have to start charging you money.

Fair has several meanings. One of these is an objective meaning of 'applied equally to all'.

Other meanings are the subjective ones you've been using, centred around morality and what is considered reasonable.

To argue that my use of the word 'fair' is wrong because it is one dictionary defintion of the word, but not the same dictionary definition that you would like me to use, is ascribing to yourself some hegomonic authority over the meaning of words that you simply don't possess.

[OngBonga]

Fair has several meanings. One of these is an objective meaning of 'applied equally to all'.

Show me that definition, because I can't find it. I can find "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination", but we now enter the problem of the meaning of "discrimination", since that word is subjective. as discrimination is defined by google as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."..

Note the word "unjust". What does that mean? It means "not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair."

Oh dear, we have a problem with morality again.

[Poopadoop]

treating someone in a way that is right or reasonable, or treating a group of people equally and not allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...y/english/fair

I'll put it on your tab.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Fair" is subjective, not objective.

context matters

In the von Neumann [0,1] game, it is not fair to the opponent.
No casino game is technically a "fair" game to the players.

Unless you pervert the game to be not only the game itself, but also the players and the information they have approaching the game. I.e. you can argue that since the players all know the games are all rigged in favor of the house, they are choosing to participate with full knowledge, which is a perfectly fair business transaction. But that's not what we're talking about when we say, "The game is not fair."

[Poopadoop]

Show me that definition, because I can't find it. I can find "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination", but we now enter the problem of the meaning of "discrimination", since that word is subjective. as discrimination is defined by google as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."..

A technical pont, but the law in this sense does not discriminate. Straight people who engage in gay sex face the same punishment.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Straight people who engage in gay sex

An apple that is sometimes an orange?

C'mon, english language! Please let words mean something!

[MadMojoMonkey]

An apple that is sometimes an orange?

C'mon, english language! Please let words mean something!

Just for clarity... IDGAF what people do for their love time. Not the slightest.

I just want to know what people mean when they use words to communicate with me what they mean.

[Poopadoop]

context matters

In the von Neumann [0,1] game, it is not fair to the opponent.
No casino game is technically a "fair" game to the players.

Unless you pervert the game to be not only the game itself, but also the players and the information they have approaching the game. I.e. you can argue that since the players all know the games are all rigged in favor of the house, they are choosing to participate with full knowledge, which is a perfectly fair business transaction. But that's not what we're talking about when we say, "The game is not fair."

Good point.

Now, if you were to ask someone 'is this casino game fair', and they replied: 'it's fair in the sense that everyone knows it's rigged in favour of the house and they dont have to play if they don't want to', would you

a. rephrase the question to clarify what you meant; or
b. start a long argument over what the word 'fair' means because you didn't make it clear yourself the first time