Ex-gay bus advert ban upheld

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Ex-gay bus advert ban upheld

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21894518

London: Transport bosses were right to ban a Christian group's bus advert suggesting gay people could be helped to change their sexuality, it has been ruled.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Nope. The

Vastet wrote:
Nope. The meanings of words change. I'm the only one of the three of us who's not stuck in the 1940's.

Nice ad hom. I've heard more clever ones, though. Here's an ad hom for you: you're changing the meaning of a word to suit your own reactionistic purposes. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you're using such blatant hyperbole and moderately abusive demeanor in an attempt to provoke thought.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burden of proof

Vastet wrote:

Burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic.

Did you somehow miss this part: "vs google, the yellow pages, my copy of the EFPA members list, and my parents' christian nutjob network." You know, the part where he produced evidence? Most of which you could verify rather easily, by the way. Of course, his parents' network is probably the best source--and I don't know how you'd verify that. Perhaps if Anonymouse took screenshots of his google search results, pictures of the relevant yellow pages, linked an online version of the EFPA members list, and typed up the relevant parts of his parents' network? I mean, if not even other fundamentalist Christians can get in touch with these people, how would they have anyone to treat?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Vastet

blacklight915 wrote:
~snip~

Assertion is not evidence.

Furthermore, the steps detailed are in no way sufficient to make the conclusion which was made. One single post on any christian or anti-gay forum in any country in the world is sufficient to see the practice continued.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Vastet

Kapkao wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Nope. The meanings of words change. I'm the only one of the three of us who's not stuck in the 1940's.

Nice ad hom. I've heard more clever ones, though. Here's an ad hom for you: you're changing the meaning of a word to suit your own reactionistic purposes. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you're using such blatant hyperbole and moderately abusive demeanor in an attempt to provoke thought.

Yawn

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:To be

Anonymouse wrote:

To be precise, there's one left in my country, and he doesn't take kids. Not anymore, he doesn't.

Wait, did you mean 'county' or 'country', Anonymouse?

 

Vastet wrote:

Assertion is not evidence.

Furthermore, the steps detailed are in no way sufficient to make the conclusion which was made. One single post on any christian or anti-gay forum in any country in the world is sufficient to see the practice continued.

Well, if he posted his results as pictures/screenshots, it'd be a lot more than "assertion".

Also, I wasn't aware you were including so many people on the list of those who perform "anti-gay therapy".

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You aren't getting the fact

You aren't getting the fact that the existence of the internet allows people to conduct local 'business' in an international forum where local laws have no impact and are between hard and impossible to track down and shut down. Did Anonymous even check craigslist, let alone the millions of blogs and forums on the net?

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his naive assertions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You aren't

Vastet wrote:

You aren't getting the fact that the existence of the internet allows people to conduct local 'business' in an international forum where local laws have no impact and are between hard and impossible to track down and shut down. Did Anonymous even check craigslist, let alone the millions of blogs and forums on the net?

Yeah, but there's a really big difference between being forced to talk to someone on a forum, and being forced to go to therapy and talk/listen to someone in person.

You seem to be less...harsh...when you address me. Whether it's intentional or not, I really appreciate it, Vastet--thank you. Smiling

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Yeah,

blacklight915 wrote:
Yeah, but there's a really big difference between being forced to talk to someone on a forum, and being forced to go to therapy and talk/listen to someone in person.

The forum is how the parents would find such a group to send their kid to. Many of these types would even arrange transport.
It's just like anything else that is censored. Ban it offline and it grows exponentially online and in the black market. Which is why you rarely can spend a few hours surfing without running into pics of naked kids. Why you can buy drugs and rent hookers from a website.

No problem. You generally don't strike me as being willfully ignorant. Willfull ignorance annoys me almost as much as hypocrisy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Then

Beyond Saving wrote:
Then have a law that makes it illegal for anyone to force anyone go to one of these kooks. The ad isn't what causes the suffering, the cause is when the parents force their kids to go against their will. I have no problem with you wanting to outlaw that, just leave free speech alone.

I can't really imagine those ads looking the same once a law like that was passed. If it included all the caveats I already mentioned, then I would have no problem with. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
My point is that what is factual and what is not, isn't as black and white as you seem to pretend. What is fact and what is not is highly subjective. So when you have some committee somewhere that is going to decide what is factual behind a particular advertisement, they are going to be wrong sometimes. So is it worth infringing on someones right to free speech who has a valid argument just to shut up another group of people you find offensive?

If it's all so "highly subjective", then on what basis do we even argue for anything ? Are you saying it's all just belief, and there are no real facts ? Then why aren't you religious ? Just because ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why do you automatically exclude doing nothing?

I tried doing nothing. It's very easy and relaxing, but things just kept getting worse. I did notice other people doing things to help me, though. Should I have told them not to bother ?  

Beyond Saving wrote:
Laws are always imperfectly applied, innocent people go to jail for murder, guilty people are not convicted etc.

No, not always.

Beyond Saving wrote:
With murder it is quite clear that the risk of punishing an innocent person is worth the benefit of getting a murderer off the street. I am not convinced that controlling what anyone says is worth punishing or silencing innocent people. Buying an advertisement on a bus is far less damaging than killing someone on the bus.  

If you have a problem with "controlling what anyone says" or "silencing innocent people", then you need to look into what this "therapy" actually does, and realize that you have quite a dilemma here. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
In the case of laws banning speech on the basis of it being offensive, I see thousands of ways it can be abused in the future. Given human history, I think it is safe to say that if power can be abused it is only a question of when it will happen, not if it will happen.

Then how do you stop the abuse of religious power ? By talking to them ? They will be very happy to talk to you, just as long as you don't interfere with what they're actually doing. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yes, but can't you at least agree that the likelihood of a law being abused and the damage that could occur if it is, is something that should be weighed when considering if the good achieved by the law is worth whatever unintended consequences might arise?

Of course ! Look, I realize that question has to be asked, but it really gets on my tits that people would even assume I didn't take that into consideration. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Of course they think it is better for them. That says nothing about what is better for you. Maybe it is better for them, you seem to be under the assumption that it isn't better for anyone simply because it isn't better for you. I'm saying you are both wrong and let people decide for themselves if gay conversion therapy is right for them. 

You would not be "deciding for yourself", when the community you live in has already decided that there is something wrong with you. You keep forgetting that. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Because I think even people with mental illnesses should be allowed to decide what mental therapy they should go to.

Ask a psychiatrist why that wouldn't work. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't think people in modern countries are ever going to believe that gay is a mental disorder, at least in our lifetime. Hardly something you need to concern yourself or a justifiable reason to infringe free speech.

Why do you think that a reasonably amount of people in modern countries no longer believe this ? Because no-one ever did anything or concerned themselves with it ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
So do you think that the organization behind the ad should be the basis upon which it is determined they cannot run it?

??

Um, no.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yeah, I fail to see the relevance to the topic though. It doesn't tie Core Issues to Exodus International, they are apparently two separate organizations.

Read what they have to say, how they justify it, and tell me again how separate they are. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Also, I fail to see the relevance of what laws are passed in Uganda to what advertisements should be allowed on a British bus. All you have shown is these guys are shady assholes, a point I will readily concede without evidence. But even assholes should have the right to free speech.
 

As I already said, this shows what they would do if they were given more political influence. And let's be clear, their part in this is not in question. In fact, they have openly bragged about their success there. It takes a little more than being  "shady assholes" to achieve what they did. This isn't an abuse of free speech that leads to people being "offended", but a law that makes lynching them legal, and that's just one aspect of the thing. 

Now lets take that exact same free speech and plaster it on a bus. Let's not.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yeah, slightly taken out of context there but much of our political rhetoric is utterly insane. Should utterly insane political rhetoric be illegal? I don't think so.

I guess you could describe hate speech as "utterly insane political rhetoric", in which case it should.

Beyond Saving wrote:
There are many countries where you can be killed for gambling, alcoholism and atheism. I don't know what kind of presence such organizations have in those countries. It wouldn't surprise me if I tried hard enough I could find a Muslim organization that pays for anti-gambling ads in the US and also has ties in one of those countries.

Actually, that would surprise me quite a lot. And why are we seemingly comparing gambling and alcoholism to being gay ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
There are certainly Muslims in the US who want our laws to be based on the teachings of the Koran, so while they don't highlight it, that would mean they support imposing the death penalty here for all sorts of things.

Yeah, again, not only a problem with comparing gambling etc to being gay, also not sure you catch the full extent of the law I was referring to. Real shame that first link didn't work. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Not sure if any of the Christian organizations that often support these ads have gone that far. 

Let's ask them ! They will totally tell us the truth. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Unfortunately not. 

You sure ? Then why wasn't the ban of that ad illegal ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
You can use your speech and I think gay rights groups have been successful at being very vocal about this issue. I know that I know a lot more about it today than I did last year. There have already been laws passed in two states and the subject has been raised in many other states so people in general are more aware of going on. Making people aware is the first step to stopping it. However, if you are going to have a free country I think you also have to tolerate advertisements from the other side too, even though they are wrong.

That depends on what the "other side" actually wants, and they've been more than clear about that. 

And seriously, you'd think with all this "freedom", people would think of something else to do than look for a minority to pick on again. Apparently "freedom" is very limiting. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think you have no right to demand a reason from anyone. If they want to give you the middle finger and tell you to mind your own business that is up to them. You do have the right to point out that they haven't given a reason, or to give your opinion that it is a bad reason- that is what free speech is all about. And I fully support your right to say whatever you want about them, even if it is offensive. I also think the other side should be allowed to say whatever they want, even if it offends you. 

That makes it sound like there actually are two sides to this. Unless you have a mind-reader ready to testify, it remains a fact that it's impossible to tell if this can even work or not. What exactly is the other side to that ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I imagine going through the effort of fucking someone of the opposite sex wouldn't be pleasant for someone who is homosexual...so if they want to have a husband/wife with 2 biological kids and a dog they would probably want to change their sexual orientation first so they enjoy producing those kids.  

Oh, you mean the sex ! Sorry, I thought you were suggesting there was some fundamental difference between how those two sets of people lived together. I keep getting confused by the word "lifestyle". 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Because the damage isn't caused by the name. They could call it zippity doo dah, what would change? Your problems with it would still exist. Although the advertisement in this context says nothing about therapy, probably because I am willing to be that the UK does have some laws where calling it therapy in an advertisement might cause problems.  

Sounds like a pretty sensible law to me.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think we should protest all the benefits that married people get that us single people are denied. Personally, I am a little offended that married people get all of these benefits that single people are denied. With all these people pushing for marriage and talking about how much better being married is to being single, I am wondering if I should get upset next time I see an advertisement that suggests getting married makes you happy. As if there is something about me that needs to be fixed by getting married.

Seriously, there are ads for that ??

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am being a little facetious here, but I have had people go rather batshit crazy when I have stated that I never intend to get married again. 

???

Beyond Saving wrote:
There is a very strong bias in the US towards marriage and seems to be this idea that if you never get married there is something 'wrong' with you.  
  

Well, at least that's one idiotic prejudice they're never going to bother kids with. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Selective enforcement of the laws and groups willing to find ways around them and seek help when persecuted. It is easy to have sympathy for a guy who gets thrown in jail because of a post he put on the internet- even when that guy is despicable. I think the best way to handle these wackos is to laugh at them and show them to the public as the jokes they are. Throwing them in jail and attempting to shut them up puts them in a position where they can become martyrs.
  

Laughing and pointing is only the best way if it works. It doesn't. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yet we have allowed massive amounts of hate speech and it was directly protected by our government. Probably the closest comparison we have to a Rwanda type situation are the mass lynchings of blacks and whites who were sympathetic towards black rights in the late 1800's early 1900's. While nowhere near the scale of what happened in Rwanda, it was a problem that we were able to resolve without infringing on anyone's free speech. Imo, if the goal can be achieved with a method that does not deprive anyone of their free speech it is preferable, even if it might be a little slower. 
  

"If" and "slower" are key words here, considering how quickly the Rwanda massacre happened. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
In the case of gay rights, I think that we can both agree the ultimate goal is to achieve a society where gays do not face any significant discrimination. It appears to me that the gay rights activists are winning that fight in pretty much every developed country. When I was in elementary school, the worst insult you could throw at someone was "your gay". Now, even our hyper christian country is seriously discussing legalizing gay marriage and the number of people who look at the term "gay" as an insult is shrinking.Is there going to be some movement that is going to seek to "cure" gays and develop a large enough following to pass laws forcing people to go to gay conversion therapy? No. Not in the UK, not in the US, at least not in our lifetimes. Pretty much every poll I have seen has shown that the largest predictor of homophobia is age, with younger people mostly having the belief of "who cares?"
 

Yes, activism works.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Would it be nice if we could stop every child that is going to be subjected to gay conversion therapy tomorrow? Probably. But at what cost?

None at all.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Is it worth giving up a little bit of our free speech rights to make a minimal impact on something that is probably going to disappear in the next 20 years anyway? I say no.

I say yes, because it is not going to disappear on it's own.

As for "giving up little bits of free speech", ask yourself this, how many of those little bits do you give up voluntarily every day, without even caring ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Democracy is inherently slow. The system was designed to move slowly on purpose. There are many good reasons why it moves slow, and yes, sometimes injustices happen while the wheels are grinding. I also understand that when you are a victim of the particular injustice that you can become extremely impatient and seek ways to speed things up.

It can work fast enough if it wants to, but it's not going to do anything at all if we don't make it work, or try to stop the people who want to make it go backwards.

Beyond Saving wrote:
A democracy can only work when people are free to talk, argue, spew propaganda and even hate. Our freedom to go out in public and state our beliefs, however false, irrational, crazy or simply stupid they might be, is extremely important.

So all those countries with hate speech laws, still democracies ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
In the long run, I believe that the truth will win, that most people are not inherently cruel and increased speech will inevitably lead to increased tolerance. It won't happen as quickly as we might like, but it does happen.

I have learned through experience that belief alone won't get you anywhere, and that most people have a near endless capacity for cruelty. I have learned to value facts, and mistrust people who tell me there is no such thing, so I'm not really into wishful thinking.

Beyond Saving wrote:
One of the reasons why this site is my home forum is because of the great amount of leeway that the moderators allow. Even when the flame wars are happening the mods sit back and let it and I can only think of a handful of people who have been banned, usually only when their behavior has gone beyond speech. Hate doesn't survive in these forums, it is picked apart, ridiculed, shown for the fraud it is and eventually the people who spew hate go away.

If only life were like that.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Hate survives when people who share the hate sit around talking to each other and reinforce each others crazy views. Let them come into public, let them post on their facebook account and announce their hate to the world. Then we can laugh at them, we can show our evidence and make them look like the fools they are. You will probably never persuade a person to stop hating, but you can persuade the people who watch the exchange.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that was worth doing. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why does "doing something" have to include the government? Want to punish Murdoch? Don't use any of his products. It isn't like any of them are particularly high quality anyway.

Why ? Well, the report makes quite a strong case. And don't think for a second that the british government WANTS to do something. They simply don't have a choice anymore.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Government is a hammer that uses coercive force to get anything done. For many things, a hammer is a useful tool and does a great job, but that doesn't mean you should use a hammer for everything.
 

You can only try to hit a nail with a screwdriver so many times before it starts to look silly.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Yeah it is

Vastet wrote:
Yeah it is strange, since noone identifying or identified as a Nazi has had any ties to the actual Nazi party in more than half a century, with a very few exceptions of actual Nazi party members being discovered and prosecuted for war crimes.

So sharing their political ideology doesn't count as ties ? 

Vastet wrote:
In current use it effectively translates to fascists or extremists of mostly any shade.

Right. Then we still have to same problem. You are seriously applying the label "fascist" to Germany and every other country with hate speech laws ? 

Vastet wrote:
And what exactly do you need hate speech laws for when there are already laws against inciting violence?

Different degrees and types of the same crime demand different ways of being dealt with. 

Vastet wrote:
So you have no evidence and you have no scientific basis to work with.

The fact that people can't read minds isn't a solid enough scientific basis ? You're asking for evidence that it doesn't work, when there's no evidence that it does. That's like asking for evidence that you have no invisible dragon.

Vastet wrote:
I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that the bigots have the exact same argument as yourself, which is enough to keep them around indefinitely.

I'm making the argument that if you can't prove a therapy works or not, then it's completely useless. They are more than welcome to borrow that argument. 

Vastet wrote:
As long as free speech is preserved you have my support.

Then we agree that sharing facts isn't a waste of time ?

Vastet wrote:
My freedom matters enough to me to kill and die for it. And I will do the same even for those I disagree with to prevent their silencing from being extended.

Not sure how that relates to what I was saying, but sure, okay. When will you be leaving to join the nearest holy war ? 

Vastet wrote:
Your naivete is cute.

What's so naive about actually checking facts before you make a statement ? 

Vastet wrote:
Pure bullshit.

Okay, then show me one of these german "work camps" that holocaust deniers get sent to.

Vastet wrote:
You've admitted a dozen times at least that you support the tactics of slavery in this very topic. How aren't you a slave?

Um, even if I did support "the tactics of slavery", that still wouldn't make me slave. 

Vastet wrote:
There are victimless crimes everywhere. Not all are tied to hate speech. Your argument is senseless.

Only if you weren't trying to make an argument yourself. So were you trying to link "victimless crimes" to hate speech or not ? 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Wait,

blacklight915 wrote:
Wait, did you mean 'county' or 'country', Anonymouse?

Country. I'm Belgian.

Btw, sweetie, please stop being so adorable. You don't need to worry about us. I don't think Vastet is being "harsh", just to-the-point and honest about what he thinks. If I didn't like that, I wouldn't talk to him.

In any case, both our skins are more than thick enough.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: The forum is

Vastet wrote:
The forum is how the parents would find such a group to send their kid to. Many of these types would even arrange transport. It's just like anything else that is censored. Ban it offline and it grows exponentially online and in the black market. Which is why you rarely can spend a few hours surfing without running into pics of naked kids. Why you can buy drugs and rent hookers from a website. No problem. You generally don't strike me as being willfully ignorant. Willfull ignorance annoys me almost as much as hypocrisy.
 

So how do I contact one of these mythical black market ex-gay therapists ? Which secret society do I need to infiltrate before I get access to the secret underground website where they hang out ? 

Because if these people are only real in a "can't prove they're not" way, then I'm not sure who's being willfully ignorant here.


 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:So sharing

Anonymouse wrote:
So sharing their political ideology doesn't count as ties ? 

I have yet to see or hear of anyone who truly shares the ideology of the Nazi party other than members of the Nazi party. I'm against capitalism and promote communism, but that doesn't mean I agree and identify with Marx.

Anonymouse wrote:
Right. Then we still have to same problem. You are seriously applying the label "fascist" to Germany and every other country with hate speech laws ? 

Most definitely. With ANY nation that limits free speech, no matter the limitation. No free speech means no democracy. Germany is by no means the worst offender, but they are easily in the top 20.

Anonymouse wrote:
Different degrees and types of the same crime demand different ways of being dealt with. 

Illogical. Why is inciting violence based on hatred any different than inciting violence for any other reason? Either way you are inciting violence. Either way someone can die.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:The fact

Anonymouse wrote:
The fact that people can't read minds isn't a solid enough scientific basis ? You're asking for evidence that it doesn't work, when there's no evidence that it does. That's like asking for evidence that you have no invisible dragon

Ridiculous. Psychiatry is a medical SCIENCE. Any method used for any scenario can be tested for accuracy.

Anonymouse wrote:
I'm making the argument that if you can't prove a therapy works or not, then it's completely useless. They are more than welcome to borrow that argument.

Right then, lets just shut down all psychiatry, since more of it is unproven than proven.

Anonymouse wrote:
Then we agree that sharing facts isn't a waste of time ?

My entire focus from the very beginning has been to halt attacks on free speech. Why would I limit it in the process?

Anonymouse wrote:
Not sure how that relates to what I was saying, but sure, okay. When will you be leaving to join the nearest holy war ? 

Soon as it starts.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:What's so

Anonymouse wrote:
What's so naive about actually checking facts before you make a statement ?

Too bad you didn't actually do that.

Anonymouse wrote:
Okay, then show me one of these german "work camps" that holocaust deniers get sent to.

Google an image of a German prison.

Anonymouse wrote:
Um, even if I did support "the tactics of slavery", that still wouldn't make me slave. 

Cognitive dissonance.

Anonymouse wrote:
Only if you weren't trying to make an argument yourself. So were you trying to link "victimless crimes" to hate speech or not ? 

How does speech make a victim?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:So how do I

Anonymouse wrote:
So how do I contact one of these mythical black market ex-gay therapists ? Which secret society do I need to infiltrate before I get access to the secret underground website where they hang out ? 

Because if these people are only real in a "can't prove they're not" way, then I'm not sure who's being willfully ignorant here.

Lulz. So pathetic I'm not even going to waste my time. Anyone with half a brain who isn't an enemy of democracy can see right through you. And so I'm now done here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:
Wait, did you mean 'county' or 'country', Anonymouse?

Country. I'm Belgian.

Btw, sweetie, please stop being so adorable. You don't need to worry about us. I don't think Vastet is being "harsh", just to-the-point and honest about what he thinks. If I didn't like that, I wouldn't talk to him.

In any case, both our skins are more than thick enough.

The elitist, knee-jerk "holier than thou" attitude that he spews forth is tiresome at times, IMNSHO. That, and he's admitted (both directly and indirectly) he'll troll people just for laughs.

I got better things to waste my time on, though sometimes he'll come through and post something really salient...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Country.

Anonymouse wrote:

Country. I'm Belgian.

Oh, okay. Cool! 

Anonymouse wrote:

Btw, sweetie, please stop being so adorable.

Anonymouse wrote:

You don't need to worry about us. I don't think Vastet is being "harsh", just to-the-point and honest about what he thinks. If I didn't like that, I wouldn't talk to him.

In any case, both our skins are more than thick enough.

So...neither of you have been really upset or hurt by anything the other has said? I only ask because I've been talking with a number of suicidal/depressed people lately, and they get upset and hurt very easily. I'm thinking about volunteering for a crisis hotline, but I really wish I could get paid for doing those things...

Unless people other than my parents are willing to fund me for merely existing... (I highly doubt it)

 

Vastet wrote:

Lulz. So pathetic I'm not even going to waste my time. Anyone with half a brain who isn't an enemy of democracy can see right through you. And so I'm now done here.

Is it even possible to function with only half a brain? Also, since I don't even know what I'm supposed to be seeing through to, am I "an enemy of democracy"?

 

Kapkao wrote:

The elitist, knee-jerk "holier than thou" attitude that he spews forth is tiresome at times

I agree. Though I find such attitudes tiresome pretty much all the time...

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Anonymouse

Kapkao wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:
Wait, did you mean 'county' or 'country', Anonymouse?

Country. I'm Belgian.

Btw, sweetie, please stop being so adorable. You don't need to worry about us. I don't think Vastet is being "harsh", just to-the-point and honest about what he thinks. If I didn't like that, I wouldn't talk to him.

In any case, both our skins are more than thick enough.

The elitist, knee-jerk "holier than thou" attitude that he spews forth is tiresome at times, IMNSHO. That, and he's admitted (both directly and indirectly) he'll troll people just for laughs.

I got better things to waste my time on, though sometimes he'll come through and post something really salient...

I troll trolls for laughs. Like your sorry ass, who never has ANYTHING to say that isn't an ad hom. Your only contribution is attacks. You're the biggest hypocrite here. Go fuck yourself bitch. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:  Is

blacklight915 wrote:

 

 

Is it even possible to function with only half a brain?

 

 

 

  Yes, absolutely it is possible.  If you are actually interested then Google "hemispherectomy" or "Christina Santhouse".

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Kapkao wrote:.

Vastet wrote:
I troll trolls for laughs. Like your sorry ass, who never has ANYTHING to say that isn't an ad hom. Your only contribution is attacks. You're the biggest hypocrite here. Go fuck yourself bitch. Smiling

 

 

 

   I eventually learned that although Vastet and I do sometimes have some legitimate differences of opinion ...like every atheists here...I was actually taking his trolling much more serious than I should have.  I think of his trolling now as more of a Howard Stern / Don Rickles type of deliberate audience agitation and not a declaration of contempt for the person themselves.  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:If it's all

Anonymouse wrote:

If it's all so "highly subjective", then on what basis do we even argue for anything ? Are you saying it's all just belief, and there are no real facts ? Then why aren't you religious ? Just because ?

I am not the one who decides what is ok to say and what isn't. What I am saying is that the people who make that decision might not always agree with you. Just look at all the people who come on here and try to pass off false "facts" to support their religions. When things are banned based on their factual evidence, you have a group of people who are making the decision what is factual and what isn't. So you are not really banning what is really false, you are banning what that group of people believes to be false. As you know, people can have some pretty absurd beliefs about what is true and there is nothing preventing the committee that makes these decisions from being irrational. Right now, the particular decision makers in the UK agree with you. Are you so confident that the next person in that powerful position will be on your side as well? That every single person who is granted the power to make such decisions in the future will also agree with you? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why do you automatically exclude doing nothing?

I tried doing nothing. It's very easy and relaxing, but things just kept getting worse. I did notice other people doing things to help me, though. Should I have told them not to bother ?  

I see a very big difference between using activism and using the police power of government to force your ideas on others. Are things getting worse in the UK? From my perspective it seems to me that gays are accepted by the majority of the population, or at least by a larger portion than in recent memory. They are here in the US as well even though we don't have a single law against hate speech. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Laws are always imperfectly applied, innocent people go to jail for murder, guilty people are not convicted etc.

No, not always.

Yes, always. There is not a single law on the planet that is perfectly applied. I challenge you to find a single law where no innocent people are punished and all guilty people are punished.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

If you have a problem with "controlling what anyone says" or "silencing innocent people", then you need to look into what this "therapy" actually does, and realize that you have quite a dilemma here. 

I am 100% against allowing anyone to force another person into this therapy or any other therapy. Which is why I would support a law banning them from doing it to children, since most of the time children cannot consent. If a person voluntarily goes to the therapy, they are making that choice and are free to quit at any time. Saying they are "forced" into anything is like saying that someone who voluntarily decides to be a submissive in S&M is being forced to be a slave. The extent to which people, especially children, are being forced into therapy is a completely separate issue from whether the organization should be allowed to run an advertisement on the bus. If anyone is forcing anyone into the therapy, there needs to be a law against that. There does not need to be a law infringing on free speech.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Then how do you stop the abuse of religious power ? By talking to them ? They will be very happy to talk to you, just as long as you don't interfere with what they're actually doing.

Religion has no power over me except for the power they are able to exercise using the government. I support a government that is very weak precisely so that the power isn't there to be abused by anyone be they religious or not.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

You would not be "deciding for yourself", when the community you live in has already decided that there is something wrong with you. You keep forgetting that. 

My community thinks there are a number of things wrong with me, yet I continue to make my decisions myself. Insofar as the gay rights activists want to be treated equally under the law and want to live their lives without having their harmless activities and desires be outlawed, they have my complete support. If you want to use government power to try to coerce people into liking or at least approving of you, I don't support it at all. Some people will be homophobic no matter what laws you pass, get over it and move on. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Why do you think that a reasonably amount of people in modern countries no longer believe this ? Because no-one ever did anything or concerned themselves with it ? 

Because of the activism of the gay rights movement, which I do not oppose. I oppose speech restrictions. Can you make a case that speech restrictions are what led to people becoming more accepting of gays? It was more speech in the form of parades, rallies, protests and a concerted effort to portray gays in a more positive light in popular media that led to our current improvements. It wasn't from using government as a tool to shut up bigots- the bigots controlled the government. Government was an obstacle to the gay rights movement having many discriminatory laws. The speech came first, and through building pressure those discriminatory laws have slowly changed. Now you apparently want to use the government to control the speech of people who oppose gay rights. Why? Are you afraid they might eventually be able to build up the same support the same way as gay rights activists and put in laws that discriminate against gays?

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yeah, I fail to see the relevance to the topic though. It doesn't tie Core Issues to Exodus International, they are apparently two separate organizations.

Read what they have to say, how they justify it, and tell me again how separate they are. 

So? Should whether or not I can put an advertisement on a bus be related to what someone with similar views/propaganda has done on some other continent? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

As I already said, this shows what they would do if they were given more political influence. And let's be clear, their part in this is not in question. In fact, they have openly bragged about their success there. It takes a little more than being  "shady assholes" to achieve what they did. This isn't an abuse of free speech that leads to people being "offended", but a law that makes lynching them legal, and that's just one aspect of the thing.

I would oppose a law against making lynching anyone legal. I do not support a law banning anyone who supports such a law from speaking. Just a few hundred miles from me the other day the KKK held a rally. These guys are real scum and filled with nothing but hate speech. If they were in power somehow there is little doubt they would support all sorts of atrocities. Know what happened? 61 KKK members showed up and found a counter protest of over 1200 people standing against their hate. That is how you deal with these clowns, not by using government police power to shut them up.  

http://www.abc24.com/mostpopular/story/Ku-Klux-Klan-Rallies-in-Downtown-Memphis/mEFdNK96_UGUPExIrvM3xw.cspx# 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

I guess you could describe hate speech as "utterly insane political rhetoric", in which case it should.

Have you already forgotten that not too many years ago the idea of gay marriage was considered "utterly insane"? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Actually, that would surprise me quite a lot. And why are we seemingly comparing gambling and alcoholism to being gay? 

Under Sharia law gambling and alcoholism are illegal and repeat offenders can be put to death. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, the death penalty still exists. In my state, the Muslim American Society was involved in the attempt to prevent casinos from opening up. It has ties in both countries and supports traditional islamic laws.  

http://muslimamericansociety.org/main/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_American_Society

Why are we comparing them? Why not? Both are groups which are targeted by religious assholes who think they should micromanage how people live their lives. Both are groups that religious people seem to believe need therapy, and both are groups that religious extremists would want to kill if they had absolute power. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Yeah, again, not only a problem with comparing gambling etc to being gay, also not sure you catch the full extent of the law I was referring to. Real shame that first link didn't work. 

What is the difference stoning someone who has gay sex and stoning someone who gambles? I don't see one. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

That depends on what the "other side" actually wants, and they've been more than clear about that. 

And seriously, you'd think with all this "freedom", people would think of something else to do than look for a minority to pick on again. Apparently "freedom" is very limiting. 

The freedom you are infringing on is the freedom of the minority. Speech laws will never ban speech that is popular with the majority in a country where the number of votes are what determines power. The reason why this story has made few waves in the UK is that most people in the UK don't agree with offending gays. If gay bashing was still popular, then the government would have banned the gay pride advertisement as offensive and not this one. The government is always slightly lagging behind the opinions of the voters.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

That makes it sound like there actually are two sides to this. Unless you have a mind-reader ready to testify, it remains a fact that it's impossible to tell if this can even work or not. What exactly is the other side to that ?

Unless you are a mind-reader it is impossible for you to show that the person who created the advertisement is not in fact ex-gay. The only evidence you have is they say they are ex-gay. Either they are lying, or they really are. How could you possibly know? Since you cannot prove the statement is an outright lie, you have to allow the possibility that it might be the truth, even if you believe that is unlikely.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think we should protest all the benefits that married people get that us single people are denied. Personally, I am a little offended that married people get all of these benefits that single people are denied. With all these people pushing for marriage and talking about how much better being married is to being single, I am wondering if I should get upset next time I see an advertisement that suggests getting married makes you happy. As if there is something about me that needs to be fixed by getting married.

Seriously, there are ads for that ??

All over the place. The idea of getting married and "living happily ever after" pervades our society. Probably one of the most prevalent organizations with these types of ads is Focus on the Family. They even have a daily radio bit where they inform me what kind of a lowlife heathen I am and how I am responsible for destroying the fabric of our civilization. 

Not to mention that gay rights activists have repeatedly thrown polyamory under the bus. Whenever they are faced with the objection "if we allow gay marriage that will lead to polygamy" their pat response has been that such ideas are ridiculous because marriage is obviously "an agreement between two people, not more." Which to me is as absurd and hateful as declaring marriage is "between a man and a woman". As if there is something wrong or bad with a person who loves multiple people.

My point is that there are a lot of things people can get offended over, and banning speech because it offends you is dangerous because you have no doubt said something offensive at one point or another yourself whether you intended to be offensive or not.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Yes, activism works.

Yes it does, and imo it is much better than restricting speech.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Would it be nice if we could stop every child that is going to be subjected to gay conversion therapy tomorrow? Probably. But at what cost?

None at all.

Banning speech you don't like is a cost. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

I say yes, because it is not going to disappear on it's own.

Then why has it been shrinking in countries without strict hate speech laws?

 

Anonymouse wrote:

As for "giving up little bits of free speech", ask yourself this, how many of those little bits do you give up voluntarily every day, without even caring ? 

I don't voluntarily give up any little bits of free speech and I certainly care. Why do you think I am spending my time arguing with someone from Belgium about something that happened in the UK? I am unlikely to ever try to buy an advertisement in either country. I care about free speech as much as you care about gay rights.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

It can work fast enough if it wants to, but it's not going to do anything at all if we don't make it work, or try to stop the people who want to make it go backwards.

I have no problem with you doing whatever you want as long as you are not suppressing free speech. Activism, speeches, rallies, protests, voting etc. are all fair game and in the past have been effective at pushing back against bigots. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

So all those countries with hate speech laws, still democracies ? 

For now. Will such laws have a negative impact in the long run? Yes. Controlling speech has been a favorite tactic of many oppressive regimes throughout history. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

You can only try to hit a nail with a screwdriver so many times before it starts to look silly.

It is a lot more effective to use a screwdriver as a hammer in a pinch than it is to try to use a hammer on a screw (especially if you have a good heavy duty screwdriver, those plastic handled ones are worthless). Given time and effort the nail will go in and be just as secure as if you used a hammer. You try to pound in a screw with a hammer and it will go in, but will be loose and fall out easily. A rather apt comparison I think, because my issue really is that controlling speech is often the easiest and fastest way to achieve a political goal, but long term it is counterproductive when the screw fails to hold.    

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Vastet

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I troll trolls for laughs. Like your sorry ass, who never has ANYTHING to say that isn't an ad hom. Your only contribution is attacks. You're the biggest hypocrite here. Go fuck yourself bitch. Smiling

 

 

 

   I eventually learned that although Vastet and I do sometimes have some legitimate differences of opinion ...like every atheists here...I was actually taking his trolling much more serious than I should have.  I think of his trolling now as more of a Howard Stern / Don Rickles type of deliberate audience agitation and not a declaration of contempt for the person themselves.  

Damn you!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for the late reply.

Sorry for the late reply. Got married and stuff

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am not the one who decides what is ok to say and what isn't. What I am saying is that the people who make that decision might not always agree with you. Just look at all the people who come on here and try to pass off false "facts" to support their religions. When things are banned based on their factual evidence, you have a group of people who are making the decision what is factual and what isn't. So you are not really banning what is really false, you are banning what that group of people believes to be false. As you know, people can have some pretty absurd beliefs about what is true and there is nothing preventing the committee that makes these decisions from being irrational. Right now, the particular decision makers in the UK agree with you. Are you so confident that the next person in that powerful position will be on your side as well? That every single person who is granted the power to make such decisions in the future will also agree with you? 

Wait, so you are saying that it's all just belief ?

And again, I'm still not clear how any idiot who might get into power in the future, might somehow be less of a problem if this hadn't been banned.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I see a very big difference between using activism and using the police power of government to force your ideas on others. Are things getting worse in the UK? From my perspective it seems to me that gays are accepted by the majority of the population, or at least by a larger portion than in recent memory. They are here in the US as well even though we don't have a single law against hate speech. 

If activism didn't lead to laws being changed or added, then why would anyone bother ? As for the UK, they're experiencing a strong resurgence of religious extremism. What happens next is worth watching.

And the gays in the US had to fight and keep on fighting for what little acceptance they have. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yes, always. There is not a single law on the planet that is perfectly applied. I challenge you to find a single law where no innocent people are punished and all guilty people are punished.

I said, "not always". I mean, come on, does an innocent get convicted every single time a law gets applied ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am 100% against allowing anyone to force another person into this therapy or any other therapy. Which is why I would support a law banning them from doing it to children, since most of the time children cannot consent. If a person voluntarily goes to the therapy, they are making that choice and are free to quit at any time. Saying they are "forced" into anything is like saying that someone who voluntarily decides to be a submissive in S&M is being forced to be a slave. The extent to which people, especially children, are being forced into therapy is a completely separate issue from whether the organization should be allowed to run an advertisement on the bus. If anyone is forcing anyone into the therapy, there needs to be a law against that. There does not need to be a law infringing on free speech.

There's still the problem of this not even being a "therapy" in the first place. And you know just as well as I do why they want to call it that. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Religion has no power over me except for the power they are able to exercise using the government. I support a government that is very weak precisely so that the power isn't there to be abused by anyone be they religious or not.

Religion has power over others, and they can do things to you.

Beyond Saving wrote:
My community thinks there are a number of things wrong with me, yet I continue to make my decisions myself. Insofar as the gay rights activists want to be treated equally under the law and want to live their lives without having their harmless activities and desires be outlawed, they have my complete support. If you want to use government power to try to coerce people into liking or at least approving of you, I don't support it at all. Some people will be homophobic no matter what laws you pass, get over it and move on. 

Homophobes I can deal with. In fact, I have no choice. I start having problems when they try to legitimize their irrational hatred by linking it to science. 

And if I wanted people to "like me", then I'd never stand up for myself at all. 

Also, if supporting a law that makes it illegal to advertise for a "therapy" that is no such thing, will make people "like me", well shit, then I just want to do it even more. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Because of the activism of the gay rights movement, which I do not oppose. I oppose speech restrictions. Can you make a case that speech restrictions are what led to people becoming more accepting of gays? It was more speech in the form of parades, rallies, protests and a concerted effort to portray gays in a more positive light in popular media that led to our current improvements. It wasn't from using government as a tool to shut up bigots- the bigots controlled the government. Government was an obstacle to the gay rights movement having many discriminatory laws. The speech came first, and through building pressure those discriminatory laws have slowly changed. Now you apparently want to use the government to control the speech of people who oppose gay rights. Why? Are you afraid they might eventually be able to build up the same support the same way as gay rights activists and put in laws that discriminate against gays? 

Okay, speech came first, creating pressure to change the laws, or create one. Like a law that says you can't advertise a "therapy" when you can't even prove that what you're doing has any effect at all ? Again, who's freedom does this limit, except that of people trying to run a scam ?

And am I worried other countries might go the way of Uganda ? Of course, I am. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
So? Should whether or not I can put an advertisement on a bus be related to what someone with similar views/propaganda has done on some other continent?

With exactly the same views/propaganda, and selling the same scam. And considering what they're doing, I think it's pretty damn significant, and should be taken into consideration, yeah. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I would oppose a law against making lynching anyone legal. I do not support a law banning anyone who supports such a law from speaking. Just a few hundred miles from me the other day the KKK held a rally. These guys are real scum and filled with nothing but hate speech. If they were in power somehow there is little doubt they would support all sorts of atrocities. Know what happened? 61 KKK members showed up and found a counter protest of over 1200 people standing against their hate. That is how you deal with these clowns, not by using government police power to shut them up.  

http://www.abc24.com/mostpopular/story/Ku-Klux-Klan-Rallies-in-Downtown-Memphis/mEFdNK96_UGUPExIrvM3xw.cspx# 

Remind me how many people they got to lynch before people decided it was a bit much. 

And if it ever gets so bad that an actual pro-lynching law makes it all the way to congress, then you will either end up with hate speech laws yourself, or another civil war. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Have you already forgotten that not too many years ago the idea of gay marriage was considered "utterly insane"? 

Yeah, I'm still hearing that. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Under Sharia law gambling and alcoholism are illegal and repeat offenders can be put to death. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, the death penalty still exists. In my state, the Muslim American Society was involved in the attempt to prevent casinos from opening up. It has ties in both countries and supports traditional islamic laws.  

http://muslimamericansociety.org/main/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_American_Society

Why are we comparing them? Why not? Both are groups which are targeted by religious assholes who think they should micromanage how people live their lives. Both are groups that religious people seem to believe need therapy, and both are groups that religious extremists would want to kill if they had absolute power. 

I'm not sure where the similarities lie between addictions and sexual orientation. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
What is the difference stoning someone who has gay sex and stoning someone who gambles? I don't see one. 

Me neither. But I see a difference between offering "therapy" for one or the other. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
The freedom you are infringing on is the freedom of the minority. Speech laws will never ban speech that is popular with the majority in a country where the number of votes are what determines power. The reason why this story has made few waves in the UK is that most people in the UK don't agree with offending gays. If gay bashing was still popular, then the government would have banned the gay pride advertisement as offensive and not this one. The government is always slightly lagging behind the opinions of the voters.  

Again, I am infringing on the freedom of people who want to run a scam.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
Unless you are a mind-reader it is impossible for you to show that the person who created the advertisement is not in fact ex-gay. The only evidence you have is they say they are ex-gay. Either they are lying, or they really are. How could you possibly know? Since you cannot prove the statement is an outright lie, you have to allow the possibility that it might be the truth, even if you believe that is unlikely. 

It doesn't matter what I believe is unlikely. What matters is that it's a fact that there's no way to tell if there even is such a thing as "ex-gay". 

Beyond Saving wrote:

All over the place. The idea of getting married and "living happily ever after" pervades our society. Probably one of the most prevalent organizations with these types of ads is Focus on the Family. They even have a daily radio bit where they inform me what kind of a lowlife heathen I am and how I am responsible for destroying the fabric of our civilization. 

"Focus on the family" ? Those people who sold their ex-gay clinics to Exodus International ? 

I think you can relax. None of that "save marriage" stuff seems aimed at single people. At least not right now. Still, it's a relief to hear they're annoying you too. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Not to mention that gay rights activists have repeatedly thrown polyamory under the bus. Whenever they are faced with the objection "if we allow gay marriage that will lead to polygamy" their pat response has been that such ideas are ridiculous because marriage is obviously "an agreement between two people, not more." Which to me is as absurd and hateful as declaring marriage is "between a man and a woman". As if there is something wrong or bad with a person who loves multiple people.

Ah, I see you've fallen for that one. Let me show you how that works :

"If we allow gay marriage, we'll end up marrying people to multiple partners, their own siblings, their dogs, their lawn furniture !"

"Dude, don't be stupid ! That's not the same th..."

"Ha ! Throwing polygamy under the bus, are we ?"

"Wait, what ?? But I never..."

"Hypocrite !"

Clever, isn't it ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
My point is that there are a lot of things people can get offended over, and banning speech because it offends you is dangerous because you have no doubt said something offensive at one point or another yourself whether you intended to be offensive or not.

I think we can agree that there's a significant difference between hate speech and "offending" someone.

Also, you'll be happy to know that "ex-gay therapy" or advertising it isn't really covered by hate speech laws. So lucky for me that it's a scam, so there are alternative ways to get them in trouble with the law. 

And yeah, if you ever catch me running a scam like that, feel free to shut me down as well. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yes it does, and imo it is much better than restricting speech.

Most of the time. Not always, unfortunately. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Banning speech you don't like is a cost.

I am banning a scam. Some dude sitting next to me on a bus, going on-and-on about how he's an ex-gay, is always going to be free to do so.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
Then why has it been shrinking in countries without strict hate speech laws?

Can't say for sure, but I would hope activism has something to do with it.

And again, even the strictest hate speech laws wouldn't be able to stop that ad, or so I've been informed. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't voluntarily give up any little bits of free speech and I certainly care.

You never limited your own free speech because you didn't want to hurt someone's feelings , or didn't want to get your ass kicked  ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why do you think I am spending my time arguing with someone from Belgium about something that happened in the UK?

Hey, it's appreciated. Don't even think we've done much real arguing. Just talking. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am unlikely to ever try to buy an advertisement in either country. I care about free speech as much as you care about gay rights.

Man, I hate that term : "gay rights". Fuck labels. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I have no problem with you doing whatever you want as long as you are not suppressing free speech. Activism, speeches, rallies, protests, voting etc. are all fair game and in the past have been effective at pushing back against bigots. 

Which makes me wonder, how do you feel about international political pressure on countries run by bigots ?  

Beyond Saving wrote:
For now. Will such laws have a negative impact in the long run? Yes. Controlling speech has been a favorite tactic of many oppressive regimes throughout history. 

People keep saying that. Nothing keeps happening. I think those laws will gradually become obsolete by themselves. Like those ancient, silly laws you sometimes hear about. ("No buggering geese after 12 o'clock !" &nbspEye-wink

Because when all is said and done, hatred is pretty silly. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is a lot more effective to use a screwdriver as a hammer in a pinch than it is to try to use a hammer on a screw (especially if you have a good heavy duty screwdriver, those plastic handled ones are worthless). Given time and effort the nail will go in and be just as secure as if you used a hammer. You try to pound in a screw with a hammer and it will go in, but will be loose and fall out easily. A rather apt comparison I think, because my issue really is that controlling speech is often the easiest and fastest way to achieve a political goal, but long term it is counterproductive when the screw fails to hold.

Try talking a nail in. How long before you ask someone with a hammer to do it for you ?

Look, I get where you're coming from, and for the most part, I'm there as well. But I think these hate speech laws deserve a chance. Keep watching them.

Meanwhile, I'll be doing anything I can to stop people abusing their free speech to run a scam.

Doing quite well, so far.  


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:
So...neither of you have been really upset or hurt by anything the other has said?

Not even a little. Don't make me come over there and hug you.

blacklight915 wrote:
I only ask because I've been talking with a number of suicidal/depressed people lately, and they get upset and hurt very easily. I'm thinking about volunteering for a crisis hotline, but I really wish I could get paid for doing those things...

Unless people other than my parents are willing to fund me for merely existing... (I highly doubt it)

Volunteering for those hot-lines can be seriously emotionally draining, especially if, like you, you actually care. 

If you wanna get paid for it, I suggest studying psychology. Now there's a field that could use a few more sensitive people.  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Sorry for

Anonymouse wrote:

Sorry for the late reply. Got married and stuff

Congrats! 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Wait, so you are saying that it's all just belief ?

I'm saying that politics is not peer reviewed science and the people making determinations of what is factual and what isn't are not scientists, experts or even particularly smart people. Politicians believe a great number of things that are factually false. So in this situation, what is factual and what isn't doesn't matter. All that matters is what the politicians in power believe is factual, regardless of whether or not they are right. I spent too much time in politics getting to know the dullards who go into it to trust them to accurately determine facts from fiction. It is kind of like asking a kindergarten class to grade algebra tests and expecting close to accurate results.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

And again, I'm still not clear how any idiot who might get into power in the future, might somehow be less of a problem if this hadn't been banned.

Because then the idiot has to go through the effort to create the board that decides what speech is banned, which hopefully will make people mad. People never pay attention when an idiot appoints another idiot to an existing board. When you create a new board with new powers, it at least gets a little attention in the newspapers.  

Take the board in Canada for example. Right now they are fining and tossing a couple people in jail for hate speech and it appears the only hate speech that occurs in Canada is of the white supremecist variety. They are slimeballs, no one likes them , so no one pays attention let alone defends their right to say whatever they want on the internet. Suppose someone new takes over and appoints members who have hard ons against atheists instead? Anyone going to notice as they scroll through RRS and decide Vastet engaged in hate speech against theists? Sure, we will notice here, but for the majority of the Canadian population it is business as usual. This committee has existed for over a decade and protects us all from the dreaded hate speech; old news, move along, nothing to see here. 

With any government bureaucracy, it is easier to prevent it from coming into existence than it is to eliminate it once it is in place. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Yes, always. There is not a single law on the planet that is perfectly applied. I challenge you to find a single law where no innocent people are punished and all guilty people are punished.

I said, "not always". I mean, come on, does an innocent get convicted every single time a law gets applied ? 

No, but that wasn't my point. My point was that for every law, some innocent people are convicted. Which is a good reason not to have a law at all unless it is very important.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Religion has power over others, and they can do things to you.

Only by using the government, which I will oppose every step of the way. Including the step where people on my side try to make government stronger. Yes, I do know it is a losing battle because throughout history governments inevitably become more powerful and eventually tyrannical. I just hope to slow that down enough that I am dead before it happens.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Remind me how many people they got to lynch before people decided it was a bit much. 

And if it ever gets so bad that an actual pro-lynching law makes it all the way to congress, then you will either end up with hate speech laws yourself, or another civil war. 

Lynching was never legal, but the law was often unenforced in areas where the majority of people didn't like the people targeted by lynchings. In fact, the law was applied very much like I fear hate speech laws might be in the future. Hate speech will be allowed without barrier as long as it is hate speech that the majority likes, while speech against the majority will be construed as hate speech regardless of whether it is actually hateful. 

Suppose for example that there were hate speech laws in the 1950's in the US. Do you think for a minute they would have been applied against white supremacists? Of course not, at that point the majority in our government was still sympathetic to them. None of our other laws were applied equally to blacks, so I don't see why hate speech laws would have been different. The law would have been used to punish people like Malcolm X. Now imo, Malcolm X had a really good reason to hate white people. White supremacists murdered his father, his uncle and abused his entire race while he was unable to get any legal protection and the majority of people just ignored these abuses. If I was in his shoes, I probably would be using a bit of hate speech myself.

It is difficult to do "what ifs" in history with any degree of certainty and modern history books tend to give all the credit for civil rights to Martin Luther King Jr. But I have always seen the two as a form of "good cop, bad cop" on popular opinion. Malcolm X did build a large following and I think if he had been shut up that the civil rights movement would have suffered for it. One case where I think the argument can be made that hate speech assisted in achieving what I'm sure we can agree is a positive end.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm not sure where the similarities lie between addictions and sexual orientation.

Many people drink without being addicted. Many people gamble without being addicted. Some people have sex addictions. All three are forms of pleasure that people decide to engage in. I don't see a difference whether you get your pleasure from a bottle of whisky, a deck of cards or sex with someone of the same gender.

And there are those who think that you should get the death penalty for all three and a much larger group of people who want to make all three illegal. There has been a constitutional amendment banning alcohol sales in the US. No one has passed a national law outlawing homosexual sex- those were all state and local laws. There is a national law against gambling on the internet that was passed in 2006.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

It doesn't matter what I believe is unlikely. What matters is that it's a fact that there's no way to tell if there even is such a thing as "ex-gay". 

And you also can't prove that the people who say they are ex-gay are lying. The only thing that can be proven about gay conversion therapy is that it is dangerous. With enough effort you can show that success rates are low, but so are success rates at any therapy and in measuring the effect of any therapy you have the same problems of having to trust people to be honest. Psychiatrist organizations encourage their members not to do the therapy on ethical grounds. There is very little data available on whether or not the therapy achieves any success. The position statements I have seen from American psychiatry organizations describe the therapy as "questionable" because there really has been no long term study done.

As far as I know, the only serious attempt was Dr. Spitzer who has now retracted the study because it was totally reliant on interviews so we have no idea how honest people were, but he didn't conduct a more fundamentally sound study to answer the initial question. Are you aware of any comprehensive study that has been conducted that reliably demonstrates the therapy doesn't work?

From my perspective, it seems to me that the psychiatric community doesn't care if there is a such a thing as ex-gay. They have decided that it is unethical and pointless to attempt to convert and leave it at that. Same reason there aren't a plethora of studies on the success of various BDSM techniques. As far as I'm concerned, if all the participants are consenting adults, I don't care if it is ethical, safe or even if it is effective. If one of these ex-gay groups promises their customers they have an X% success rate and it can be proven that they are deliberately misleading that opens up a civil lawsuit for the person effected. I don't see it as an excuse to prevent them from advertising.

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Ah, I see you've fallen for that one. Let me show you how that works :

"If we allow gay marriage, we'll end up marrying people to multiple partners, their own siblings, their dogs, their lawn furniture !"

"Dude, don't be stupid ! That's not the same th..."

"Ha ! Throwing polygamy under the bus, are we ?"

"Wait, what ?? But I never..."

"Hypocrite !"

Clever, isn't it ? 

I was speaking more about the legal arguments used in front of the Supreme Court the other week where the lawyers went out of their way to argue that it would not be legal for a state to define marriage as more than two people. I don't care what someone says on the news, everything said there is quickly forgotten. The justices often draw on what is said during the arguments while drafting their opinions and if the justices decide to specifically draw a line where the lawyers argued it should be, those words will be around for a long time. That could hurt in a future Supreme Court case arguing for states to be allowed to define a polygamous marriage as marriage. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Can't say for sure, but I would hope activism has something to do with it.

And again, even the strictest hate speech laws wouldn't be able to stop that ad, or so I've been informed. 

Which makes it even more disturbing that it was banned at the whim of a government bureaucrat rather than intentionally banned by a law. At least with a law you have some legal recourse if your ad is improperly banned. As far as I can tell, this group has no one to appeal to. The dictocrat decided it was offensive, so the dictocrat gets his way. Short of some massive protests that might cause him to step down, there is no way he is held accountable for his decision. Since there isn't massive protests, he is secure to ban whatever ads he doesn't like. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

You never limited your own free speech because you didn't want to hurt someone's feelings , or didn't want to get your ass kicked?

I control what I say in a variety of situations. Never out of fear of getting my ass kicked, I have a tendency to get mouthy when people physically threaten me; it probably isn't the best response, but people who make physical threats piss me off. But there is a huge difference between self restraint and a government threatening to punish me. If I decide it isn't appropriate to tell someone that their kids are the ugliest things I have ever seen, it doesn't mean I am giving up my freedom to say it. I could say it, I just don't want to. Just because you have a freedom doesn't mean you have to exercise it. Just because you decide not to exercise a freedom doesn't mean you don't have it. Who knows? Next time I am subjected to looking at a picture of those ugly little goons I might decide to point out how ugly they are. It is nice to know I have the freedom to make that choice. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Which makes me wonder, how do you feel about international political pressure on countries run by bigots ?

I am generally opposed to government actions like sanctions and troops. Sanctions simply don't work and have never worked anywhere they are tried. I don't support military involvement because I don't see a need for the US to be the world's police force and for the most part we have botched the job and caused more harm than good when we have tried.

As far as international activist organizations, I say more power to them and am involved with a few myself.

  

Anonymouse wrote:

People keep saying that. Nothing keeps happening. I think those laws will gradually become obsolete by themselves. Like those ancient, silly laws you sometimes hear about. ("No buggering geese after 12 o'clock !" &nbspEye-wink

Because when all is said and done, hatred is pretty silly. 

I hope you are right. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Try talking a nail in. How long before you ask someone with a hammer to do it for you ?

Asking requires talking and telling someone else to do it is my favorite way of getting any work done. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Got married and

Quote:
Got married and stuff

Grats! Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.