Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,218 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 22 hours, 15 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well done TS, you win the 2022 Boris Johnson award for avoiding the question!!
I’ll go through your “responses” one by one, and perhaps (I’m ever the optimist) you might actually give a clear and unequivocal response.
I said – “they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen.” Do you, TS, believe that homosexuality is contrary to human nature and that it leads to degradation and degeneration?”
You said – “I didn’t ask you about Putin’s beliefs on the subject. I asked you what specific laws you were alluding to.”
I agree I did not ask about a specific law, that is because my original posting asked ”do you approve of Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?” It will be noted that you have attempted first to move from my original question “Putin’s stance” to “Putin’s Policy” and then on to illegality. It might be an idea to answer the questions put in from of you. A clearer example of the straw man fallacy would be difficult to devise.
So for the sake of clarity I am now asking you if you concur with Putin’s views, as stated regarding degradation and degeneration quoted above?I wrote “in 2013 The Russian state passed a “gay propaganda” (Their quote) ban arguing that promotion of LGBT rights was harmful to children. (Do you think that the promotion of LGBT rights is harmful to children?)”
You wrote – “So you are opposed to a law preventing the teaching of gay rights in schools? There was no teaching of gay rights when I went to school. I guess I was unaware that I was actually being oppressed. Were you taught “gay rights” when you were in school?”
My response – I was taught in the 1960s and 70s in a Catholic Grammar School, I wasn’t even taught about the reproductive system other than being told that contraception was wrong. I do know that lack of teaching during childhood of the fact that homosexuality was part of the normal range of human experiences was detrimental to the long term mental health of people who grew up either confused about their sexuality or for those people who knew that they were LGBTQ. So I will ask you directly do you think that the promotion of LBGT rights is harmful to children and if so do you agree with the legal ban on this put in place by the Putin Government?
I wrote -“Do you agree with Putin that children can be “taught that a boy can become a girl and vice versa” is monstrous and “on the verge of a crime against humanity.” Quoted and backed up with video footage by the FT.”
Your response is “His views are his own”
My response – The are indeed his own; however the question was about your views. What are your views about this matter?
I wrote “in 2015 Russia also introduced a driving ban prohibiting people with “sexual disorders” including people who were transsexual or transgender. Do you approve those bans TS?”Your response was “ICD-10 especially stresses that sexual orientation by itself isn’t considered a personality disorder.” “It sounds like there’s an awful lot of leeway regarding the decree. Again, homosexuality is not criminalised in RF.”
My response is to repeat the question, do you agree with driving bans being put in place for people who are transsexual or transgendered? Again ignoring your straw man argument, my original question was not about homosexuality being banned in Russia, it was asking you if you agreed with “Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?” it is possible to be discriminatory without putting in place a full ban. The Apartheid regime did not ban people from being black, but it was discriminatory. As to ICD-10 and personality disorder, I did not say that the particular ban stated that “sexual disorder” and personality disorder were equivalences. They are not, either by ICD-10 or DSM-5 definitions, DSM-5 moved Gender Dysphoria outside of the categorisation of sexual disorders all together.
I wrote “Do you, TS, agree with the statement of Yelena Mizulina Chairman of The Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, that “Traditional sexual relations are relations between a man and a woman. These relations need special protection”.”
Your response – “What matters are the laws. Homosexuality is not illegal in RF.”
My response is again restating that you have put forward a straw man argument. I asked about Putin’s “discriminatory stance”. Stating that traditional sexual relationships require special protection makes a discrimination between same sex relationships and relationships between men and women, do you agree with this discriminatory stance?
I finally wrote – “Perhaps you also agree with her stance on decriminalising Domestic Violence categorised as “first assaults which cause less serious injuries””
Your response “Do stay on topic.”
My response – I wrote “perhaps you also agree” that was an attempt to expand rather than change the topic, however just to be clear, I would appreciate (and I am sure other readers will equally be interested in seeing) your response to this topic as well.It sounds like there’s an awful lot of leeway regarding the decree. Again, homosexuality is not criminalised in RF.
My response is to repeat the question, do you agree with driving bans being put in place for people who are transesual or trnasgendered? To clarify your responses further, my original question was not about homosexuality being banned in Russia, it was asking you if you agreed with “Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?” it is possible to be discriminatory without putting in place a full ban. The Apartheid regime did not ban pepople from being black, but it was discriminatory.
You also have moved from my original question “Putin’s stance” to policy and finally on to illegality, your difficulty in answering these questions is clear to anyone reading.
I’ve got to say with your misleading responses, I am even starting to even wonder whether or not you are really even a Scotsman!
““This is liberation, not a war!””
There you go again, parroting bourgeois MSM lies. What a good boy, here’s a scooby snack.
“But newly released testimony from one of the incident’s main witnesses punctures the official narrative about a targeted Russian airstrike on the hospital. The witness account indicates the hospital had been turned into a base of operations by Ukrainian military forces and was not targeted in an airstrike, as Western media claimed. Her testimony also raised serious questions about whether at least some elements of the event were staged for propaganda purposes – and with the cooperation of the Associated Press.”
And this from the notoriously pro-Russian Washington Post…
“But Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes, said human rights activists and international humanitarian law experts.
“If there is military equipment there and [the Russians] are saying we are launching at this military equipment, it undermines an assertion that they are attacking intentionally civilian objects and civilians,” said Richard Weir, a researcher in Human Rights Watch’s crisis and conflict division, who is working in Ukraine.
Over the past month, Washington Post journalists have witnessed Ukrainian antitank rockets, antiaircraft guns and armored personnel carriers placed near apartment buildings.
The Ukrainian military has “a responsibility under international law” to remove their forces and equipment from civilian-populated areas, and if that is not possible, to move civilians out of those areas, Weir said.
“If they don’t do that, that is a violation of the laws of war,” he added.
On Monday, Ukrainian forces showed a group of journalists a military fortification in a northern residential neighborhood of the capital, near tall apartment buildings, a subway station and shops.
But the line between what constitutes a war crime becomes more blurred if residential neighborhoods are militarized and become battlefields where civilian deaths are inevitable.
“Ukraine cannot use civilian neighborhoods as ‘human shields,’”
I should think TS is one of those who rolls about in the street brawling with members of the EDL or BNP.
Not exactly rational behaviour.https://images.app.goo.gl/AEctFZvAvsGBYmtm8
Of the same ilk.
Generalplan Ost was a top-secret plan and not known to the Soviets.
“It was a strictly confidential document, and its contents were known only to those in the topmost level of the Nazi hierarchy.”
https://archive.ph/20120527021449/http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm#selection-1253.91-1283.11The war was one of self-defence to maintain Soviet sovereignty. The very same reason given by the Ukrainian government.
And in the propaganda war both sides allege genocide intentions of the other.
As for the Polish interpretation of the proposed Anglo-French-Soviet pact, the condition of the right of occupation of Polish (and Romanian) territory was viewed as the reason Poland rejected it and neither Paris nor London could reassure Polish concerns. They were confirmed when Soviet forces invaded Poland and partitioned it with Germany.
The Soviet Union annexed 52.1% of Poland’s territory, with over 13,700,000 people: 38% Poles (ca. 5.1 million people), 37% Ukrainians, 14.5% Belarusians, 8.4% Jews, 0.9% Russians and 0.6% Germans.
The number of Poles deported to Siberia or Central Asia between 1939 and 1941 has been estimated at from under 500,000 to over 1,500,000
Between 1939 and the beginning of Operation Barbarossa approximately 500,000 Ukrainians would be deported to Siberia and central Asia.
But my question was why did the Communist Party oppose the war from 1939 – 1941 when several European nations had been attacked, invaded and occupied.
“It is I who pity you and your gaggle of Quixotic malcontents. You are doomed to whisper at walls the rest of your inglorious days. You deserve such contempt. You call the CIA your friends and shit on all actually existing socialism. I have no respect for you whatsoever.”
Why then do you persist in engaging with members of this forum, not once but twice?
What is your purpose in wasting your time and energy with those you hold in contempt and have no respect for?
Left, right.
Left, right.“I agree I did not ask about a specific law, that is because my original posting asked ”do you approve of Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?””
His personal opinions are neither here nor there. What matters is policy.
“It might be an idea to answer the questions put in from of you.”
It appears to me that you are conflating Putin’s personal opinions with public policy. The two do not go hand in hand.
“A clearer example of the straw man fallacy would be difficult to devise.”
Except I made no strawman.
“So for the sake of clarity I am now asking you if you concur with Putin’s views, as stated regarding degradation and degeneration quoted above?”
And I repeat, it’s policy that is important.
“So I will ask you directly do you think that the promotion of LBGT rights is harmful to children and if so do you agree with the legal ban on this put in place by the Putin Government?”
To be honest, it doesn’t really concern me one way or the other whether gay rights are taught in high school.
“I wrote -“Do you agree with Putin that children can be “taught that a boy can become a girl and vice versa” is monstrous and “on the verge of a crime against humanity.” Quoted and backed up with video footage by the FT.””
Your response is “His views are his own”
My response – The are indeed his own; however the question was about your views.”
My views on the matter aren’t important either, public policy is.
“What are your views about this matter?”
As I said, it isn’t of much concern to me. If homosexuality was actively punished I would find that objectionable. But it isn’t.
“I wrote “in 2015 Russia also introduced a driving ban prohibiting people with “sexual disorders” including people who were transsexual or transgender. Do you approve those bans TS?”
Your response was “ICD-10 especially stresses that sexual orientation by itself isn’t considered a personality disorder.” “It sounds like there’s an awful lot of leeway regarding the decree. Again, homosexuality is not criminalised in RF.”
My response is to repeat the question, do you agree with driving bans being put in place for people who are transsexual or transgendered?”
I believe I said I thought the ban rather silly.
“Again ignoring your straw man argument,”
Again, I never made a straw man argument. A strawman argument is when you create a caricature of your opponents views and then ridicule that caricature. I made no caricature of your argument, therefore it is impossible that I have strawmanned you. Do you follow?
“my original question was not about homosexuality being banned in Russia,”
I know. But what do I care what anybodies’ personal views are. The only thing that concerns me are actions.
“it was asking you if you agreed with “Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?” it is possible to be discriminatory without putting in place a full ban.”
No one is being discriminated against by a failure to teach gay rights in schools.
“The Apartheid regime did not ban people from being black, but it was discriminatory.”
Lol. So not including gay rights in the high school syllabus is equivalent to apartheid? Are you listening to yourself?
I wrote “Do you, TS, agree with the statement of Yelena Mizulina Chairman of The Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, that “Traditional sexual relations are relations between a man and a woman. These relations need special protection”.”
Your response – “What matters are the laws. Homosexuality is not illegal in RF.”
My response is again restating that you have put forward a straw man argument.
Erm, no, I haven’t.
I finally wrote – “Perhaps you also agree with her stance on decriminalising Domestic Violence categorised as “first assaults which cause less serious injuries””
Your response “Do stay on topic.”
My response – I wrote “perhaps you also agree” that was an attempt to expand rather than change the topic, however just to be clear, I would appreciate (and I am sure other readers will equally be interested in seeing) your response to this topic as well.
Erm, this is a thread about the conflit in Ukraine. Not the gays.
“My response is to repeat the question, do you agree with driving bans being put in place for people who are transesual or trnasgendered?”
And I already answered you. I think it rather silly. But I can’t comment on the law without knowing how or even if it is being enforced.
“To clarify your responses further, my original question was not about homosexuality being banned in Russia, it was asking you if you agreed with “Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?””
You are a bore. Putin’s personal opinions are his own. They have not translated into the outlawing of homosexuality. What else matters?
“it is possible to be discriminatory without putting in place a full ban. The Apartheid regime did not ban pepople from being black, but it was discriminatory.”
Lol, Russia is South Africa for the gays…Riiiiight.
“You also have moved from my original question “Putin’s stance” to policy and finally on to illegality, your difficulty in answering these questions is clear to anyone reading.”
There’s only one reason why Putin’s stance on homosexuality is given any attention and it is to demonise the man and by extension Russia. It’s classic liberal bait and switch. While liberals cheer on wars of aggression that have torn dozens of nations of to shreds, have implemented policies that have condemned vast swathes of humanity to poverty and penury they say ignore all that you whataboutist, at least we don’t hate the gays! Well congratulations for being a a good little liberal. You want a gold star stamp, champ?
“I’ve got to say with your misleading responses, I am even starting to even wonder whether or not you are really even a Scotsman!”
My Lord, you aren’t the sharpest tool in the toolbox are you? The True Scotsman is a kind of logical fallacy. Look it up when you’re taking a gander at the strawman fallacy which you also know nothing about.
“Generalplan Ost was a top-secret plan and not known to the Soviets.”
And how is that in anyway whatsoever relevant to the point that I’d made about the Nazis conducting a war of extermination?
“It was a strictly confidential document, and its contents were known only to those in the topmost level of the Nazi hierarchy.”
Relevant how?
“The war was one of self-defence to maintain Soviet sovereignty.”
Against a foe that was conducting a genocidal war of extermination against them. That is not happening in Ukraine in case you hadn’t noticed.
“The very same reason given by the Ukrainian government.”
The fascist Ukrainian state that began a war of annihilation against its own citizens in 2014 and was in the process or launching its final solution of the Donbass problem forcing the Russian intervention. You kind of forgot that bit.
“And in the propaganda war both sides allege genocide intentions of the other.”
I see. The Jews say there was a holocaust, the Nazis say there wasn’t. Darn, shucks. I guess we’ll just never know.
“As for the Polish interpretation of the proposed Anglo-French-Soviet pact, the condition of the right of occupation of Polish (and Romanian) territory was viewed as the reason Poland rejected it”
Yep, they thought they wouldn’t be able to hold on to their ill gotten loot. And how did that turn out for them?
“They were confirmed when Soviet forces invaded Poland and partitioned it with Germany.”
Historical revisionism and base lies. The Soviets did not invade Poland. Poland had ceased to exist as a state when its cowardly government fled into voluntary exile in Romania. It was only then that the Red army moved in to prevent a Nazi occupation of the entire territory. Territory which had been conquered by Poland during the Russian civil war. Stalin intended for the Polish government to flee east of the Vistula and form a new government there under Soviet protection. A buffer against the Nazis. That was the whole point of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, to create a sphere of influence where the Nazis could not step foot.
“The Soviet Union annexed 52.1% of Poland’s territory, with over 13,700,000 people: 38% Poles (ca. 5.1 million people), 37% Ukrainians, 14.5% Belarusians, 8.4% Jews, 0.9% Russians and 0.6% Germans.”
Yes or no, was most of that territory formerly Russian and conquered by Poland during the Civil war? I guess you’d have preferred it was annexed by the Nazis rather than its rightful owners? Of course you would. You think the Soviets just should have surrendered because Ost was secret don’t you know! Lol
“The number of Poles deported to Siberia or Central Asia between 1939 and 1941 has been estimated at from under 500,000 to over 1,500,000”
To avoid an ethnic cleansing. The Polish congenitally despise the Russian people and their government was largely fascist. Their government, hyena like, tore chunks out of Czechoslovakia and was even in negotiations to join the Axis however talks broke down over the status of Danzig.
“Between 1939 and the beginning of Operation Barbarossa approximately 500,000 Ukrainians would be deported to Siberia and central Asia.”
You mean OUN Banderites and fascists? Poor fascists.
“But my question was why did the Communist Party oppose the war from 1939 – 1941 when several European nations had been attacked, invaded and occupied.”
Why should the Soviets have gone to their rescue? Those very same countries had all invaded the Soviet Union on the side of the Whites, spurned all attempts at collective security agreements in the League of Nations and the proposal of the million man army, were actively allowing and even participating in the rearming of Germany and were encouraging Hitler’s war mongering provided it was directed East. Finally, the Soviets weren’t ready. The Germans had the most powerful army in the Europe and were joined by eleven European allies. The Soviets were in the middle of reorganising the Red Army and had a deficit in war material.
“Why then do you persist in engaging with members of this forum, not once but twice?”
As much as I find you contemptible this is one of the few forums where I am not banned. People usually find the truth too abrasive. It upsets their sensibilities.
“What is your purpose in wasting your time and energy with those you hold in contempt and have no respect for?”
There’s no fun in joining an echo chamber. You can not sharpen your arguments if you’re only surrounded by those who agree with you.
But there’s no depth to discuss with TS, because he is following an ideology, unlike us. His thought is laid down for him by a leadership, and that is true of all parties except us and the anarchist-communists (the mature ones, that is). But Leninists are all overgrown teenagers.
““I’ve got to say with your misleading responses, I am even starting to even wonder whether or not you are really even a Scotsman!”
My Lord, you aren’t the sharpest tool in the toolbox are you? The True Scotsman is a kind of logical fallacy.”
🙂 🙂 It is clear you also don’t understand the concept of Irony!
What a bell end!
PHILOSOPHY VS. IDEOLOGY
philosophy n. Gk. “Love of wisdom.”
The analysis, subjected to reason and evaluation (dependent upon a person’s evolution of thought), of impressions, desires, feelings, leading to the further elaboration of thought.
______ideology n. A body of ready-made beliefs containing its own ready-made logic; hence, accepted by a person without scrutiny and with an emotional need to ‘belong’: e.g. a follower.(See follow, v.)
TM – “I should think TS is one of those who rolls about in the street brawling with members of the EDL or BNP.”
I’ve got to be honest, I don’t think TS would be much use in a ruck. I’ve met his type before on lots picket lines and protests, full of rhetoric and venom, but when it all kick’s off he’d be on his toes on a flash.
I think TS is more likely to prefer spending time sitting with a portrait of Deirdre Grsowold, mumbling about the fickle nature of unrequited love.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.