By the same logic: For every pair of gay men, there is a pair of women who can't find partners. (I'm not supporting that logic, just extending it).
That fails to account for gay women...
A point I actually addressed, when I stated that your proposition that allowing polygamy would cause in imbalance is flawed becuase it fails to accoutn for the other direction (woman/man/man/etc).
No, it hypothetically causes the same impacts. Because we haven't studied it.
But we have studied it...I linked to a study. That study is about polygamy, not about the impacts of other sources of gender ratio imbalance.
Fari enough, I suppose, if you are willing to treat sociology as a real science you will not be dissuaded and will consider that a real study. It's not worth arguing over because neither pf us will change the others mind on that issue. (Edit: thats only a little more dismissive than I intended to be. Suffice to say my opinion on sociology as a legit form of science is pretty apparent.)
I would think that the same number of woman/man/man/etc pairings would exist as man/woman/woman/etc pairings (assuming any do). Note, I'm not talking about non-consensual pairings here -- purely consensual ones.
Unlike the case for gay women, polyandry (one woman, multiple men) is quite rare. Look at all the groups in the US that would practice polygamy more openly were it legal. They are without exception polygynous.
In the gay marriage case, the evidence points to rough parity (although it is true that homosexuality in men seems to be a bit more common), whereas for polygamy the evidence points to wide disparity.
prolygamous practice has a wide disparity, does polygamous desire? The second one being the one that actually matters. Not the first one.
prolygamous practice has a wide disparity, does polygamous desire? The second one being the one that actually matters. Not the first one.
Practice is the one that matters, because that's what determines the gender disparity.
And do we actually believe that if polygamy was legal it would be wide spread enough for it to matter? Isnt the world population already slightly tipped female?
Sure if 10% of men had 4 wives(40ish% of women) we might have an issue... but would we not also run into an issue if 20% of all people were homosexual? Our economy is built on an expanding population. If population growth becomes negative we would run into issues.
Polygamy happens anyway. It is popular enough to have a TV show about it. From what I can tell there is no wide spread chaos caused by a few dozen dudes being gluttons for punishment with several wives.
prolygamous practice has a wide disparity, does polygamous desire? The second one being the one that actually matters. Not the first one.
Practice is the one that matters, because that's what determines the gender disparity.
And do we actually believe that if polygamy was legal it would be wide spread enough for it to matter? Isnt the world population already slightly tipped female?
Sure if 10% of men had 4 wives(40ish% of women) we might have an issue... but would we not also run into an issue if 20% of all people were homosexual? Our economy is built on an expanding population. If population growth becomes negative we would run into issues.
Polygamy happens anyway. It is popular enough to have a TV show about it. From what I can tell there is no wide spread chaos caused by a few dozen dudes being gluttons for punishment with several wives.
It would depend on the community. The effects would almost certainly be confined to those areas in which there's a proclivity for polygamy, such as those of certain Mormon sects, some of the more extreme evangelical Christian sects, and some Muslim communities.
We can already observe the negative effects from the few openly polygamist communities in the country.
The homosexual comparison is rather silly, because gay marriage being legal does not increase the number of gay people. Gay people are going to be gay regardless of whether they can be married. Legalizing polygamous marriage, on the other hand, will increase the practice of polygamy, especially in those communities where there is a religious motivation for it.
The homosexual comparison is rather silly, because gay marriage being legal does not increase the number of gay people. Gay people are going to be gay regardless of whether they can be married. Legalizing polygamous marriage, on the other hand, will increase the practice of polygamy, especially in those communities where there is a religious motivation for it.
It may not increase the number of gay people but it does increase the chance that a bisexual person chooses to live in a homosexual partnership.
But you need only point out that lesbians balance that out...
Do they? That homosexuality is equally prevalent among men and women is not something you can take for granted. Tons of conditions show gender imbalances.
After all, the implicit assumption in the polygamy argument is that the polyandrous marriages will not balance out the polygynous ones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It may not increase the number of gay people but it does increase the chance that a bisexual person chooses to live in a homosexual partnership.
I find this rather unlikely. A bisexual person is going to be with the person they are attracted to. I would imagine it's a rare thing for a bisexual person to end a relationship in favor of one of the opposite gender merely because they cannot be married.
By contrast, the current legality of polygamy really does restrict its practice.
So one religion kicking men out of it's religion is reason to not allow people to marry in the way they want? I see nothing wrong with this at all from a legal perspective.
This does nothing to prove that not having enough women for all the men is somehow bad for society as a whole.
It may not increase the number of gay people but it does increase the chance that a bisexual person chooses to live in a homosexual partnership.
I find this rather unlikely. A bisexual person is going to be with the person they are attracted to. I would imagine it's a rare thing for a bisexual person to end a relationship in favor of one of the opposite gender merely because they cannot be married.
By contrast, the current legality of polygamy really does restrict its practice.
If homosexual marriage is illegal, a bisexual person is more likely to choose to "settle down" in a heterosexual relationship than a homosexual one. Especially if homosexual partners adopting children is illegal and the bisexual person wants to have children.
I still see no reason to believe that legalizing Polygamy would make a significant impact on the majority of society.
So one religion kicking men out of it's religion is reason to not allow people to marry in the way they want? I see nothing wrong with this at all from a legal perspective.
This does nothing to prove that not having enough women for all the men is somehow bad for society as a whole.
...you asked for an example where we could see the damage. Of course it's just an example. Don't ask for an example and then complain that it's not general.
If you want evidence about the generalized effects, look at the study I posted earlier.
If homosexual marriage is illegal, a bisexual person is more likely to choose to "settle down" in a heterosexual relationship than a homosexual one. Especially if homosexual partners adopting children is illegal and the bisexual person wants to have children.
I still find it rather unlikely that someone is going to choose their partner on that basis.
...you asked for an example where we could see the damage. Of course it's just an example. Don't ask for an example and then complain that it's not general.
Your example is an issue with a religion that happens to practice polygamy, not an issue with polygamy itself. That is my complaint.
I see no previous study about polygamy posted by you. I apologize if I am mistaken.
Proof? I'll give you incestuous because of the issues with having children there... but how is polygamy any worse for society than other forms of marriage? Admittedly it makes the paperwork more difficult... but that doesnt seem like a good reason to deny other people rights. In fact, Christians have the exact same argument against gay marriage as you just used for polygamous marriage.
Right, the difference is that I can in fact demonstrate that polygamy causes societal ills, whereas one cannot demonstrate that for gay marriage.
Think of it this way: If one man married five women, then we now have four men who can't find partners. It causes the same impacts we see in countries where forces like selective abortion cause a big disparity in gender ratios. These excess young men turn to violence and crime. This isn't just theoretical: it's the result of sociological studies.
Proof? I'll give you incestuous because of the issues with having children there... but how is polygamy any worse for society than other forms of marriage? Admittedly it makes the paperwork more difficult... but that doesnt seem like a good reason to deny other people rights. In fact, Christians have the exact same argument against gay marriage as you just used for polygamous marriage.
Right, the difference is that I can in fact demonstrate that polygamy causes societal ills, whereas one cannot demonstrate that for gay marriage.
Think of it this way: If one man married five women, then we now have four men who can't find partners. It causes the same impacts we see in countries where forces like selective abortion cause a big disparity in gender ratios. These excess young men turn to violence and crime. This isn't just theoretical: it's the result of sociological studies.
Sorry I found it shortly after I posted that. I did a cursory look through but the best I can see is a theory that polygamy would lead to more unmarried males, and unmarried males are at higher risk to commit crimes... I dont really see this as a good reason to outlaw polygamy. That's an issue with how people react to a situation not an issue with polygamy itself.
I mean...that's exactly what I've been saying. Polygamy creates a situation that has negative impacts.
I can certainly see that some political philosophies wouldn't view that as a valid reason to restrict polygamist marriage, and I think there's certainly some merit to that view also. But I do object to the idea to restriction of polygamy is merely arbitrary.
But you need only point out that lesbians balance that out...
Do they? That homosexuality is equally prevalent among men and women is not something you can take for granted. Tons of conditions show gender imbalances.
They don't exactly balance out, but the disparity is not nearly so large as the disparity between polygynous marriage vs. polyandrous marriage. The evidence worldwide is that polygyny is far more frequent than polyandry. It's not really in dispute.
Polygamous societies definitely show more evidence of what Tiax is talking about than societies with acceptance for gay people. There are societies where you can point to this actually happening (like Mormon compounds, or societies in other places, like Africa). I doubt you can find any evidence that gay marriage has led to an increase in unpartnered men or women.
The number of gay people is relatively stable, and not very large, and the number of gay men and lesbians is similar, if not exactly the same. And only trying to force gays into the closet will cause them to partner with straight people anyhow. If you're not trying to do that, I don't see how gay marriage will have anything but a negligible effect on this issue because of perhaps some bisexuals being more likely to stay in same-sex relationships.
That doesn't mean, however, that I think it's in the end a persuasive argument against allowing polygamy in the US.
It might be a good argument for discouraging polygamy in societies that are largely polygynous.
I'm not sure that just combating sexism wouldn't have the same effect though (empowered women being perhaps less likely to enter into polygynous marriages), and without necessitating the state telling people what kind of marriages they can have.
After all, the implicit assumption in the polygamy argument is that the polyandrous marriages will not balance out the polygynous ones.
I don't really care about polygamy or polyamory.
I'm not arguing that it should be illegal, nor that that's a good argument that polygamy should be.
But I don't think this particular problem has any analogy to the gay marriage argument.
In the context of an internet debate which I believe should serve as a method to educate and sway readers/participants views?
So in order to do this I shouldn't make factual statements about their arguments, which is to say, that they're discriminatory?
Fascinating that you would want me to not correct logical errors in order to educate.
This is, of course, assuming that you are not, in an act of total hypocrisy, just making empty posts to get the last word in order to save face without giving any regard to educating or swaying readers (you are).
NO. I am sure Bagat and Joss and whoever else has the same opinion as them has heard the "that's discrimination! I dont care if you say otherwise" argument plenty of times. I find it irrelevant.
They are being discriminatory. We have determined they are being discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruled they are being discriminatory several decades ago. There is no question that they are being discriminatory.
And if you don't find it relevant to say whether or not something is discrimination in a debate about discrimination then why are you even here?
In the context of an internet debate which I believe should serve as a method to educate and sway readers/participants views?
So in order to do this I shouldn't make factual statements about their arguments, which is to say, that they're discriminatory?
Fascinating that you would want me to not correct logical errors in order to educate.
This is, of course, assuming that you are not, in an act of total hypocrisy, just making empty posts to get the last word in order to save face without giving any regard to educating or swaying readers (you are).
NO. I am sure Bagat and Joss and whoever else has the same opinion as them has heard the "that's discrimination! I dont care if you say otherwise" argument plenty of times. I find it irrelevant.
They are being discriminatory. We have determined they are being discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruled they are being discriminatory several decades ago. There is no question that they are being discriminatory.
And if you don't find it relevant to say whether or not something is discrimination in a debate about discrimination then why are you even here?
My point is they dont care how many times you say it or how much "proof" you provide. Some people will never see their view as being discriminatory. Especially if you "say" it in a dismissive tone or by accusing them of personally denying other people their rights. If they are using that view as reason to not allow something(gay marriage) then it is much more productive to ignore their wrong view(or even acknowledge it!) and show how even if their view was true it does not matter for the law/debate in question.
Also if you care to know, originally I came in here to debate the merits of hate crime laws. However, I could not ignore the way you responded to those other statements, because it's that kind of response that will further entrench people against what you are trying to promote.
My point is they dont care how many times you say it or how much "proof" you provide. Some people will never see their view as being discriminatory.
Yes, a lot of people will deny the truth. This does not make it less important to say the truth. It makes it more important.
it is much more productive to ignore their wrong view
No, because not only is that not education, but it is immoral to not stand up for others when someone is seeking to oppress them through discriminatory laws using the exact same language used during segregation.
Furthermore, if someone is being harmfully and wrongfully discriminatory to another person, it is vital to inform that person of his wrongdoing, not ignore it.
Now, are you going to stop acting like this has anything to do with education or whatever and be honest about the fact that you're just posting for the sake of not wanting to lose face by conceding an argument? Because right now you are actually trying to argue that we should not call discrimination discrimination for fear of alienating people who are advocating the oppression of others through legalized discrimination. Are you seriously going to tell me this is exactly where you want to find yourself?
Also if you care to know, originally I came in here to debate the merits of hate crime laws.
My point is they dont care how many times you say it or how much "proof" you provide. Some people will never see their view as being discriminatory.
Yes, a lot of people will deny the truth. This does not make it less important to say the truth. It makes it more important.
it is much more productive to ignore their wrong view
No, because not only is that not education, but it is immoral to not stand up for others when someone is seeking to oppress them through discriminatory laws using the exact same language used during segregation.
Furthermore, if someone is being harmfully and wrongfully discriminatory to another person, it is vital to inform that person of his wrongdoing, not ignore it.
Now, are you going to stop acting like this has anything to do with education or whatever and be honest about the fact that you're just posting for the sake of not wanting to lose face by conceding an argument? Because right now you are actually trying to argue that we should not call discrimination discrimination for fear of alienating people who are advocating the oppression of others through legalized discrimination. Are you seriously going to tell me this is exactly where you want to find yourself?
Also if you care to know, originally I came in here to debate the merits of hate crime laws.
Maybe you should stick to that then.
contrary to what the liberal brain-washing you have received would lead you believe, being outraged is not a legitimate debate tactic.
He's like 98% conservative. The fact that he doesn't toe (or tow, as I believe actually makes sense in this case) the party line on every social issue doesn't even remotely make him a liberal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Vestar... I am pretty sure Highroller and I usually agree on debate topics. This isnt a liberal vs conservative issue. It's a debate tactic issue where we just dont see eye to eye on the best way to approach this particular idea that we disagree with.
Because right now you are actually trying to argue that we should not call discrimination discrimination for fear of alienating people who are advocating the oppression of others through legalized discrimination.
That is not what I am arguing at all. I am saying that telling someone they are still being discriminatory in a hostile tone does nothing to sway their view. I am also saying that you dont have to label anti-gay marriage as discriminatory to be able to argue that gay marriage should be legal.
IF someone wants to believe that DOMA is not discriminatory but can still be swayed to believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is that not better than them just ignoring you? I would even call that better than if they agreed that it was discriminatory but still held the belief that gay marriage should not be allowed.
Vestar... I am pretty sure Highroller and I usually agree on debate topics. This isnt a liberal vs conservative issue. It's a debate tactic issue where we just dont see eye to eye on the best way to approach this particular idea that we disagree with.
Because right now you are actually trying to argue that we should not call discrimination discrimination for fear of alienating people who are advocating the oppression of others through legalized discrimination.
That is not what I am arguing at all. I am saying that telling someone they are still being discriminatory in a hostile tone does nothing to sway their view. I am also saying that you dont have to label anti-gay marriage as discriminatory to be able to argue that gay marriage should be legal.
IF someone wants to believe that DOMA is not discriminatory but can still be swayed to believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is that not better than them just ignoring you? I would even call that better than if they agreed that it was discriminatory but still held the belief that gay marriage should not be allowed.
So, in other words, this:
Quote from Highroller »
Because right now you are actually trying to argue that we should not call discrimination discrimination for fear of alienating people who are advocating the oppression of others through legalized discrimination"
is exactly what you're arguing.
Except if someone's being unjustly and wrongfully discriminatory against someone, why do you believe it would benefit either the person being discriminated against, the person doing the discrimination, or the situation as a whole by withholding such information from that person?
Furthermore, how the balls does that constitute educating that person?
See, this is what's really going on here:
1. bakgat and ljossberir made some foolish statements about how it isn't discrimination to only have straight marriage, because everyone has equal rights to have heterosexual marriages.
2. I proceeded to say that these marriages are absolutely discrimination and with Loving v. Virginia, they have no basis for making their statements.
3. You objected to my dismissal of their arguments, saying their arguments had some logic or basis.
4. Tiax and I pointed out that, no, as illustrated by Loving v. Virginia, they have no logical basis for their arguments, because they are claiming something that is absolutely discriminatory as an example of something that is not discriminatory.
5. You backpedaled to say that whether or not what they're saying is discriminatory is irrelevant.
... Despite the fact that their position is that a certain practice is not discriminatory, thereby making the question of whether or not the practice is discriminatory the topic of the discussion.
That got shot down, which lead us to:
6. You revised your statement to say that we should pretend they're not being discriminatory... because this will somehow promote education or something.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that:
A) Once again, their central argument was that they weren't being discriminatory, making discrimination the topic we're discussing, and
B) To say that gay people should get married because whether or not they're gay doesn't matter relies on the idea that preventing them from getting married because they're gay is unjustly discriminatory.
Once upon a time I wished to live in Russia. The cold wouldn't bother me, the people seemed hearty and strong, and they had plenty of historic places I wished to see, but now I would not travel there if my life depended on it. I am a strong supporter of equal rights, and to see a country allow such utter disregard for human life continue with its consent is nothing short of disgusting. I know that there isn't much people outside of Russia can do, given the strenuous nature of politics, but no country that speaks of freedom and equality should turn a blind eye to this atrocity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Running:
Nothing, I have just gotten back after a long hiatus, and am just now starting to rebuild my collection.
I like how everyone here is so eager to make a drastic judgment (russia is a fascist state, Putin endorses neo-nazis, boycott the olympics or better even, create a revolution there, etc., etc.) without actually knowing a damn thing about this whole situation. And this is the scariest thing about the modern so-called progressive and thinking media-society - it's as ignorant as people were in Dark Ages, it just considers itself to be enlightened, pious and well-meaning.
So let's analyze the article in the initial post:
Russia’s ongoing institutionalized homophobia has taken the form in “movements” by neo-Nazis to lure gay male teens over social media
First thing that should be noted is how neo-nazis aka "skinheads" (yes, I know that original skinhead idea has nothing to do with racism and it's the boneheads we're talking about here; it's just that in russia the word "skinhead" was popularized as a label for bones by the ignorant journalists, this definition took sturdy roots and now the word won't go away) are anything but government-supported. For example, mass-media, whenever some loud murder or mugging case happens, just loves to howl "the skinheads were behind it!" This love is great to the point that the whole accusation become something of a local meme.
Skinheads often have troubles with law (unsurprisingly), and government does nothing to cover them up. In fact, it often uses them as a scapegoat. Mind you, I'm not advocating them being innocent kittens and neither do I have any love or respect for them - they're an exceptionally fringe group of people that is hated by pretty much everyone else here. In all actuality, they're loathed so much that a whole youth movement called "antifa" exists, dedicated solely to battling them. And battling in a very literal sense - fistfights between skins and antifa are not uncommon.
Of course, it goes without a saying that they also get no financial support from the government. Basically, you can't put the words "institutionalized" and "neo-Nazis" in one sentence when talking about Russia because such neo-nazis are hated by everyone, are supported by no one (except other neo-nazis), don't make for a large % of the population and usually come from the dregs of society. To put an analogy, you have your ghettos and "white trash" - we have our skinheads.
Another thing to notice is that, amongst local hooligans (and, basically, that's what skinheads are - a large group of hooligans) this whole prank of luring out someone via social web romancing is relatively popular, and it's not in any means exclusive to gays - lots of straight guys were beaten that way. You meet a wonderful girl over ICQ, you go to meet her - whoopsie, it's a trio of angry dudes who meet you. That's horrible, of course, but stating that it's some special gay hunting maneuver is wrong.
with the intention of kidnapping , bullying, and publicly torturing them.
That's just bull. Do you honestly believe that we're, like, what? Monsters? That we see guys torturing some kid on the street and go on with "it's ok, he's a *** anyways"? That no one will call the police as soon as he witnesses it? Well, folks, if you do think so then congratulations - you're racist! Because only a racist can believe absurd stereotypes like that.
Yes, bullying happens, that's true. By the skinheads, who are thugs and hooligans and may beat you up on a whim (if there are no witnesses). But kidnappings and public torture - that's preposterous. Heck, if you watch those kids on a video bullying their victim, you'll see they do it in the rather deserted area (and it always happens that way). They're not that stupid and we're not as callous.
“infamous Russian ultranationalist and former skinhead, Maxim Martsinkevich,” known as “Cleaver.”
He is definitely infamous, but he's not that famous, he's not a widely known or well-respected figure - for example, I've never heard about him before this article. He really tries to become one (in fact, his public pedophile hunting has little to do with homophobia and lots with publicity) and he has a lots of different projects going on (one is aimed at helping skinheads who've served prison time - yeah, russian government totally covers up skinheads' crimes), but they're hardly successful and his main auditory are teenage bullies. I dunno, considering that, apparently, USA has its own bullying problem and its huge (or so it seems), don't you have your own bulling icons? Or, at the very least, wannabe icons?
Anyhow, skinheads are fringe. And this Martsinkevich fella is a rather colorful personality - he's a jewish neonazi, he's a con man, he's an attention whore, he's a self-made pornstar (he uploaded a video with himself as a main actor), he's an small-time extortionist (rumor goes that he blackmails those pedophiles that he finds), he spent time in a mental clinic (he was actually excluded out of military because of psychiatric issues), he spent time in a jail (and he's likely to spend some again in the near future). He's a very sick puppy, yes. But is he an adequate representation of your average russian? You decide.
The video cuts out after that, leaving the boy’s fate unknown.
That's cheap dramatizing. They're your run-of-the-mill bullies, you think they've what, raped & dismembered him? Mind you, I'm not defending them or protecting them, I'm just being objective here - bullying happens all around the world, ususally, very little get done about it (which is disgusting), but it rarely ends with the direct killing of a victim. Not even in Russia.
Victims are left traumatized with many reportedly committing suicide following the attacks.
I've researched this a little and the results turned out to be kinda strange - all I've found were the loud boasts of Martsinkevich and his followers. Yes, they proudly say that lots of pedophiles offed themselves after encounters with them. But, considering how much of attention whores they are, and how loud their claims usually are, it's hard to take their words as a 100% truth.
At the very least, there's a case of Anatoliy Buligin - apparently, they've made a "loud" social web campaign, celebrating his suicide, the only problem is, he's quite alive atm.
Unsurprisingly, police refuse to arrest any of the perpetrators as homophobia is government-sanctioned thanks to Russia’s odious anti-gay “propaganda” law.
Once again, it's pure hate-speech that has nothing in common with reality. I mean, do they even know what exactly does that law mean? Do you know that? Or you think that it's all about evil dictator Putin allowing the mindless satanic russian drones to lynch gays at every corner? That we're some kind of always chaotic evil orcs here? Sure, sure.
Thing is, it's hard to do anything for the police because the perpetrators are actually not that dumb. Martsinkevich himself doesn't target teenagers - he hunts after adults and his common tactic is to pose as a 15-year teenager in the social web, offer paid sex (basically, prostitution) and then, when they meet in the real life, to give his victim a little surprise. So what's his victim gonna do? Go to the police and say: "you know, folks, so I've tried to hire a teenage hooker, but she turned out to be..." Yeah, right.
And, btw, he doesn't target solely gay pedophiles - he also hunts for hetero ones. Actually, he's not famous for targeting gays - he always aims at pedophiles or, at the very least, says he does. And while I don't support his actions in no way, after skimming through a couple of his videos, I also can't really feel any pity towards his victims. Any adult bastard who dares to ask 15-year girl whether she swallows or not and how deep does she take it in deserves whatever is coming after him.
Now, for the video in the article, it's done by the different people - as you can see, their victims is 15 year old and they're also 15 year old. And, as you know, it's really hard to push any kind of criminal responsibility on the stupid teenagers, especially since the vermin himself seems to know his "rights". To quote him:
"Maximum that we do is threads and intimidation. I even try not to insult those whom we catch. I've already spoken with lawyers about this, that doesn't even fall under a criminal responsibility <...> One thing they can accuse me of is an article 133 (forcing into actions of sexual nature) - that's because of our last video, where I was jokingly saying, hey, do an oral sex for us and we'll let you go. Apparently, someone has treated this not as a joke".
It's hard to jail kids. I mean, I've heard about a particular case in your glorious and noble country, where a girl (Amanda Todd was her name) was bullied into a suicide over a facebook - she was foolish enough to flash her breasts in a webcam conversation and was later blackmailed by that picture, blackmailed so hard that everybody began to bully her and she saw no exit but death. Now, enlighten me, a savage, barbaric, homophobic russian, how many jail years were given to her bully? Because there's no anonymity over an internet and it shouldn't be hard to discover his identity, especially with the facebook cooperation.
So yeah, it's hard to put a legal crackdown on their activity (especially since they don't actually torture or kidnap anyone - they know their limits), and their victims don't help the case either. They can't turn to police because there's no:
The teens then show up for what they think is a date
THey don't show up for a date, they show up to prostitute themselves to adult guys - their victim in the article-linked video says himself that he was offered 5000 rubles (about $170) for a sex with an adult guy. Now, what do you think he's gonna say to the police? "Oh, I was totally trying to prostitute myself honestly, but those damn evil guys..."
Mind you, I'm not saying that he deserves it. He deserves psychological help, that's for sure, and totally not humiliation and bullying, but we're having a legal charlie francis here - so he engages into illegal activity and then the state is forced to somehow protect him legally. That's hard and this difficulty is multiplied by the age of participants.
And it's not like this problem is without media attention:
http://lenta.ru/news/2013/08/01/sf/ - senator asks for attention towards bullies in linked video (google translate it if you don't believe me).
- No matter what you think of him, Putin has nothing to do with actions of teens in linked video, and the label of said video is pure defamation and hate speech. Accuse him of his own deeds.
- This thing is more about pedophiles than it is about gays. And it's victims can't really turn into police because they've tried to engage into prostitution one way or another.
- This thing is extremely marginal and is not widely supported by any means.
- This brand of "teen gay" bullying is relatively now, it has already attracted public attention and investigations are underway.
But, of course, I don't expect anyone to listen to reason. Apparently, cold war has never ended and it's right to perceive russians as some kind of subhuman disney villains who care about nothing but torturing gays.
A point I actually addressed, when I stated that your proposition that allowing polygamy would cause in imbalance is flawed becuase it fails to accoutn for the other direction (woman/man/man/etc).
Fari enough, I suppose, if you are willing to treat sociology as a real science you will not be dissuaded and will consider that a real study. It's not worth arguing over because neither pf us will change the others mind on that issue. (Edit: thats only a little more dismissive than I intended to be. Suffice to say my opinion on sociology as a legit form of science is pretty apparent.)
prolygamous practice has a wide disparity, does polygamous desire? The second one being the one that actually matters. Not the first one.
Practice is the one that matters, because that's what determines the gender disparity.
And do we actually believe that if polygamy was legal it would be wide spread enough for it to matter? Isnt the world population already slightly tipped female?
Sure if 10% of men had 4 wives(40ish% of women) we might have an issue... but would we not also run into an issue if 20% of all people were homosexual? Our economy is built on an expanding population. If population growth becomes negative we would run into issues.
Polygamy happens anyway. It is popular enough to have a TV show about it. From what I can tell there is no wide spread chaos caused by a few dozen dudes being gluttons for punishment with several wives.
It would depend on the community. The effects would almost certainly be confined to those areas in which there's a proclivity for polygamy, such as those of certain Mormon sects, some of the more extreme evangelical Christian sects, and some Muslim communities.
We can already observe the negative effects from the few openly polygamist communities in the country.
The homosexual comparison is rather silly, because gay marriage being legal does not increase the number of gay people. Gay people are going to be gay regardless of whether they can be married. Legalizing polygamous marriage, on the other hand, will increase the practice of polygamy, especially in those communities where there is a religious motivation for it.
We can? How so? I didnt know there were areas of the country where an extreme lack of single women was an issue due to polygamy.
It may not increase the number of gay people but it does increase the chance that a bisexual person chooses to live in a homosexual partnership.
Keep in mind I support both kinds of marriage.
Do they? That homosexuality is equally prevalent among men and women is not something you can take for granted. Tons of conditions show gender imbalances.
After all, the implicit assumption in the polygamy argument is that the polyandrous marriages will not balance out the polygynous ones.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's a big problem in areas where Mormon polygamy is still practiced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
I find this rather unlikely. A bisexual person is going to be with the person they are attracted to. I would imagine it's a rare thing for a bisexual person to end a relationship in favor of one of the opposite gender merely because they cannot be married.
By contrast, the current legality of polygamy really does restrict its practice.
So one religion kicking men out of it's religion is reason to not allow people to marry in the way they want? I see nothing wrong with this at all from a legal perspective.
This does nothing to prove that not having enough women for all the men is somehow bad for society as a whole.
If homosexual marriage is illegal, a bisexual person is more likely to choose to "settle down" in a heterosexual relationship than a homosexual one. Especially if homosexual partners adopting children is illegal and the bisexual person wants to have children.
I still see no reason to believe that legalizing Polygamy would make a significant impact on the majority of society.
...you asked for an example where we could see the damage. Of course it's just an example. Don't ask for an example and then complain that it's not general.
If you want evidence about the generalized effects, look at the study I posted earlier.
I still find it rather unlikely that someone is going to choose their partner on that basis.
Your example is an issue with a religion that happens to practice polygamy, not an issue with polygamy itself. That is my complaint.
I see no previous study about polygamy posted by you. I apologize if I am mistaken.
This is the study I posted.
Sorry I found it shortly after I posted that. I did a cursory look through but the best I can see is a theory that polygamy would lead to more unmarried males, and unmarried males are at higher risk to commit crimes... I dont really see this as a good reason to outlaw polygamy. That's an issue with how people react to a situation not an issue with polygamy itself.
I can certainly see that some political philosophies wouldn't view that as a valid reason to restrict polygamist marriage, and I think there's certainly some merit to that view also. But I do object to the idea to restriction of polygamy is merely arbitrary.
Polygamous societies definitely show more evidence of what Tiax is talking about than societies with acceptance for gay people. There are societies where you can point to this actually happening (like Mormon compounds, or societies in other places, like Africa). I doubt you can find any evidence that gay marriage has led to an increase in unpartnered men or women.
The number of gay people is relatively stable, and not very large, and the number of gay men and lesbians is similar, if not exactly the same. And only trying to force gays into the closet will cause them to partner with straight people anyhow. If you're not trying to do that, I don't see how gay marriage will have anything but a negligible effect on this issue because of perhaps some bisexuals being more likely to stay in same-sex relationships.
That doesn't mean, however, that I think it's in the end a persuasive argument against allowing polygamy in the US.
It might be a good argument for discouraging polygamy in societies that are largely polygynous.
I'm not sure that just combating sexism wouldn't have the same effect though (empowered women being perhaps less likely to enter into polygynous marriages), and without necessitating the state telling people what kind of marriages they can have.
I don't really care about polygamy or polyamory.
I'm not arguing that it should be illegal, nor that that's a good argument that polygamy should be.
But I don't think this particular problem has any analogy to the gay marriage argument.
So in order to do this I shouldn't make factual statements about their arguments, which is to say, that they're discriminatory?
Fascinating that you would want me to not correct logical errors in order to educate.
This is, of course, assuming that you are not, in an act of total hypocrisy, just making empty posts to get the last word in order to save face without giving any regard to educating or swaying readers (you are).
They are being discriminatory. We have determined they are being discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruled they are being discriminatory several decades ago. There is no question that they are being discriminatory.
And if you don't find it relevant to say whether or not something is discrimination in a debate about discrimination then why are you even here?
My point is they dont care how many times you say it or how much "proof" you provide. Some people will never see their view as being discriminatory. Especially if you "say" it in a dismissive tone or by accusing them of personally denying other people their rights. If they are using that view as reason to not allow something(gay marriage) then it is much more productive to ignore their wrong view(or even acknowledge it!) and show how even if their view was true it does not matter for the law/debate in question.
Also if you care to know, originally I came in here to debate the merits of hate crime laws. However, I could not ignore the way you responded to those other statements, because it's that kind of response that will further entrench people against what you are trying to promote.
Yes, a lot of people will deny the truth. This does not make it less important to say the truth. It makes it more important.
No, because not only is that not education, but it is immoral to not stand up for others when someone is seeking to oppress them through discriminatory laws using the exact same language used during segregation.
Furthermore, if someone is being harmfully and wrongfully discriminatory to another person, it is vital to inform that person of his wrongdoing, not ignore it.
Now, are you going to stop acting like this has anything to do with education or whatever and be honest about the fact that you're just posting for the sake of not wanting to lose face by conceding an argument? Because right now you are actually trying to argue that we should not call discrimination discrimination for fear of alienating people who are advocating the oppression of others through legalized discrimination. Are you seriously going to tell me this is exactly where you want to find yourself?
Maybe you should stick to that then.
contrary to what the liberal brain-washing you have received would lead you believe, being outraged is not a legitimate debate tactic.
He's like 98% conservative. The fact that he doesn't toe (or tow, as I believe actually makes sense in this case) the party line on every social issue doesn't even remotely make him a liberal.
That is not what I am arguing at all. I am saying that telling someone they are still being discriminatory in a hostile tone does nothing to sway their view. I am also saying that you dont have to label anti-gay marriage as discriminatory to be able to argue that gay marriage should be legal.
IF someone wants to believe that DOMA is not discriminatory but can still be swayed to believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is that not better than them just ignoring you? I would even call that better than if they agreed that it was discriminatory but still held the belief that gay marriage should not be allowed.
So, in other words, this:
is exactly what you're arguing.
Except if someone's being unjustly and wrongfully discriminatory against someone, why do you believe it would benefit either the person being discriminated against, the person doing the discrimination, or the situation as a whole by withholding such information from that person?
Furthermore, how the balls does that constitute educating that person?
See, this is what's really going on here:
1. bakgat and ljossberir made some foolish statements about how it isn't discrimination to only have straight marriage, because everyone has equal rights to have heterosexual marriages.
2. I proceeded to say that these marriages are absolutely discrimination and with Loving v. Virginia, they have no basis for making their statements.
3. You objected to my dismissal of their arguments, saying their arguments had some logic or basis.
4. Tiax and I pointed out that, no, as illustrated by Loving v. Virginia, they have no logical basis for their arguments, because they are claiming something that is absolutely discriminatory as an example of something that is not discriminatory.
5. You backpedaled to say that whether or not what they're saying is discriminatory is irrelevant.
... Despite the fact that their position is that a certain practice is not discriminatory, thereby making the question of whether or not the practice is discriminatory the topic of the discussion.
That got shot down, which lead us to:
6. You revised your statement to say that we should pretend they're not being discriminatory... because this will somehow promote education or something.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that:
A) Once again, their central argument was that they weren't being discriminatory, making discrimination the topic we're discussing, and
B) To say that gay people should get married because whether or not they're gay doesn't matter relies on the idea that preventing them from getting married because they're gay is unjustly discriminatory.
What are trying to accomplish here again, Fluffy?
To get you to realize that a hostile tone has no place in trying to sway opinion.
But whatever you can win! I am a horrible person for trying to get you to actually have a conversation with people that have the same views as Bakgat.
Currently Running:
Nothing, I have just gotten back after a long hiatus, and am just now starting to rebuild my collection.
Ut oh! He failed an ideological purity test! Burn the liberal RINO!
Spam infraction. - Blinking Spirit
So let's analyze the article in the initial post:
First thing that should be noted is how neo-nazis aka "skinheads" (yes, I know that original skinhead idea has nothing to do with racism and it's the boneheads we're talking about here; it's just that in russia the word "skinhead" was popularized as a label for bones by the ignorant journalists, this definition took sturdy roots and now the word won't go away) are anything but government-supported. For example, mass-media, whenever some loud murder or mugging case happens, just loves to howl "the skinheads were behind it!" This love is great to the point that the whole accusation become something of a local meme.
Skinheads often have troubles with law (unsurprisingly), and government does nothing to cover them up. In fact, it often uses them as a scapegoat. Mind you, I'm not advocating them being innocent kittens and neither do I have any love or respect for them - they're an exceptionally fringe group of people that is hated by pretty much everyone else here. In all actuality, they're loathed so much that a whole youth movement called "antifa" exists, dedicated solely to battling them. And battling in a very literal sense - fistfights between skins and antifa are not uncommon.
Of course, it goes without a saying that they also get no financial support from the government. Basically, you can't put the words "institutionalized" and "neo-Nazis" in one sentence when talking about Russia because such neo-nazis are hated by everyone, are supported by no one (except other neo-nazis), don't make for a large % of the population and usually come from the dregs of society. To put an analogy, you have your ghettos and "white trash" - we have our skinheads.
Another thing to notice is that, amongst local hooligans (and, basically, that's what skinheads are - a large group of hooligans) this whole prank of luring out someone via social web romancing is relatively popular, and it's not in any means exclusive to gays - lots of straight guys were beaten that way. You meet a wonderful girl over ICQ, you go to meet her - whoopsie, it's a trio of angry dudes who meet you. That's horrible, of course, but stating that it's some special gay hunting maneuver is wrong.
That's just bull. Do you honestly believe that we're, like, what? Monsters? That we see guys torturing some kid on the street and go on with "it's ok, he's a *** anyways"? That no one will call the police as soon as he witnesses it? Well, folks, if you do think so then congratulations - you're racist! Because only a racist can believe absurd stereotypes like that.
Yes, bullying happens, that's true. By the skinheads, who are thugs and hooligans and may beat you up on a whim (if there are no witnesses). But kidnappings and public torture - that's preposterous. Heck, if you watch those kids on a video bullying their victim, you'll see they do it in the rather deserted area (and it always happens that way). They're not that stupid and we're not as callous.
He is definitely infamous, but he's not that famous, he's not a widely known or well-respected figure - for example, I've never heard about him before this article. He really tries to become one (in fact, his public pedophile hunting has little to do with homophobia and lots with publicity) and he has a lots of different projects going on (one is aimed at helping skinheads who've served prison time - yeah, russian government totally covers up skinheads' crimes), but they're hardly successful and his main auditory are teenage bullies. I dunno, considering that, apparently, USA has its own bullying problem and its huge (or so it seems), don't you have your own bulling icons? Or, at the very least, wannabe icons?
Anyhow, skinheads are fringe. And this Martsinkevich fella is a rather colorful personality - he's a jewish neonazi, he's a con man, he's an attention whore, he's a self-made pornstar (he uploaded a video with himself as a main actor), he's an small-time extortionist (rumor goes that he blackmails those pedophiles that he finds), he spent time in a mental clinic (he was actually excluded out of military because of psychiatric issues), he spent time in a jail (and he's likely to spend some again in the near future). He's a very sick puppy, yes. But is he an adequate representation of your average russian? You decide.
That's cheap dramatizing. They're your run-of-the-mill bullies, you think they've what, raped & dismembered him? Mind you, I'm not defending them or protecting them, I'm just being objective here - bullying happens all around the world, ususally, very little get done about it (which is disgusting), but it rarely ends with the direct killing of a victim. Not even in Russia.
I've researched this a little and the results turned out to be kinda strange - all I've found were the loud boasts of Martsinkevich and his followers. Yes, they proudly say that lots of pedophiles offed themselves after encounters with them. But, considering how much of attention whores they are, and how loud their claims usually are, it's hard to take their words as a 100% truth.
At the very least, there's a case of Anatoliy Buligin - apparently, they've made a "loud" social web campaign, celebrating his suicide, the only problem is, he's quite alive atm.
Once again, it's pure hate-speech that has nothing in common with reality. I mean, do they even know what exactly does that law mean? Do you know that? Or you think that it's all about evil dictator Putin allowing the mindless satanic russian drones to lynch gays at every corner? That we're some kind of always chaotic evil orcs here? Sure, sure.
Thing is, it's hard to do anything for the police because the perpetrators are actually not that dumb. Martsinkevich himself doesn't target teenagers - he hunts after adults and his common tactic is to pose as a 15-year teenager in the social web, offer paid sex (basically, prostitution) and then, when they meet in the real life, to give his victim a little surprise. So what's his victim gonna do? Go to the police and say: "you know, folks, so I've tried to hire a teenage hooker, but she turned out to be..." Yeah, right.
And, btw, he doesn't target solely gay pedophiles - he also hunts for hetero ones. Actually, he's not famous for targeting gays - he always aims at pedophiles or, at the very least, says he does. And while I don't support his actions in no way, after skimming through a couple of his videos, I also can't really feel any pity towards his victims. Any adult bastard who dares to ask 15-year girl whether she swallows or not and how deep does she take it in deserves whatever is coming after him.
Now, for the video in the article, it's done by the different people - as you can see, their victims is 15 year old and they're also 15 year old. And, as you know, it's really hard to push any kind of criminal responsibility on the stupid teenagers, especially since the vermin himself seems to know his "rights". To quote him:
It's hard to jail kids. I mean, I've heard about a particular case in your glorious and noble country, where a girl (Amanda Todd was her name) was bullied into a suicide over a facebook - she was foolish enough to flash her breasts in a webcam conversation and was later blackmailed by that picture, blackmailed so hard that everybody began to bully her and she saw no exit but death. Now, enlighten me, a savage, barbaric, homophobic russian, how many jail years were given to her bully? Because there's no anonymity over an internet and it shouldn't be hard to discover his identity, especially with the facebook cooperation.
So yeah, it's hard to put a legal crackdown on their activity (especially since they don't actually torture or kidnap anyone - they know their limits), and their victims don't help the case either. They can't turn to police because there's no:
THey don't show up for a date, they show up to prostitute themselves to adult guys - their victim in the article-linked video says himself that he was offered 5000 rubles (about $170) for a sex with an adult guy. Now, what do you think he's gonna say to the police? "Oh, I was totally trying to prostitute myself honestly, but those damn evil guys..."
Mind you, I'm not saying that he deserves it. He deserves psychological help, that's for sure, and totally not humiliation and bullying, but we're having a legal charlie francis here - so he engages into illegal activity and then the state is forced to somehow protect him legally. That's hard and this difficulty is multiplied by the age of participants.
And it's not like this problem is without media attention:
http://lenta.ru/news/2013/08/01/sf/ - senator asks for attention towards bullies in linked video (google translate it if you don't believe me).
http://www.rosbalt.ru/generation/2013/07/05/1149305.html - another article (with an interview with bullies themselves).
http://www.mk.ru/social/article/2013/07/03/879017-quotokkupaypedofilyayquot-izdevaetsya-v-sotssetyah-nad-malenkimi-detmi.html - and another one. a small, but very hostile towards perpetrators and in a big newspaper.
Ok, now for the TL;DR version:
- No matter what you think of him, Putin has nothing to do with actions of teens in linked video, and the label of said video is pure defamation and hate speech. Accuse him of his own deeds.
- This thing is more about pedophiles than it is about gays. And it's victims can't really turn into police because they've tried to engage into prostitution one way or another.
- This thing is extremely marginal and is not widely supported by any means.
- This brand of "teen gay" bullying is relatively now, it has already attracted public attention and investigations are underway.
But, of course, I don't expect anyone to listen to reason. Apparently, cold war has never ended and it's right to perceive russians as some kind of subhuman disney villains who care about nothing but torturing gays.