Is homosexuality a bad thing?

Quote:

Not true. Discrimination was used as to who was attacked. Only the lebanese or "people of middle-eastern appearance" were attacked by Australians. This was a case of discrimination. Some of the attacked lebanese may not have been perpetraitors, but It is not possible to tell, and it is the perpetrating lebaneses' fault that other members of their people were attacked.

And you're justifying that? It is not just the perpetrating Lebanese's fault that the innocent people of that certain nationality were attacked, it is also the fault of the attackers.

Quote:

If our country was invaded by Vikings, it is not, and will never be acceptable to not discriminate against Vikings. It is not acceptable to say that they have just as much right to our country as we do. Thats not how life works. Discrimination/prejudice is often justified.

Acceptable by who? Let's say that there's a Viking pacifist movement who wanted their people out of the country, are you going to not work with those people? And what of your country's citizens who are of Viking descent? Is it reasonable to say that those people should be discriminated as well? This seems like some form of nationalist agenda that I can never agree to.

It is reasonable to discriminate, if by discriminate you mean seeing a difference, but what discriminate generally mean, is to act on the basis of prejudice, and prejudice by definition is "an unwarranted bias" or "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"
(http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aprejudice&meta=), in which case, it is never "reasonable" to do so.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is not just the perpetrating Lebanese's fault that the innocent people of that certain nationality were attacked

Yes it is. When a dingo kills a child and the population is culled as a result (which also happened over here), it is the fault of the dingo (and to a lesser extent, the parents of the child).

Quote:

it is also the fault of the attackers.

That doesnt make sense. And if it does, it implies that you cant attack someone at fault - because you are then at fault - which is in a way one of the points I am debating against.

Quote:

Acceptable by who?

By the peoples (dominant) that occupy our country.

Quote:

And what of your country's citizens who are of Viking descent?

This is a fair point, but would not stop people discriminating (as was well shown against Arab people living in America. Just because it may not come under a universal title of "right", does not mean that when Australians are being hacked apart by vicious Vikings who are invading the country, they are going to say "Well, we musn't discriminate against the Vikings who were already here". While the Vikings that live in Australia would be "nice" under normal conditions, they may not stay that way when they see their own kind taking over the country.

0 Replies

RaceDriver, you can't be serious when you're saying that it's the fault of the innocent people. You must be pretty naive to believe that because i'm of the same nationality with somebody i have a power over him and i can stop him from being violent with a clap of my hands. If someone wants to be violent he couldn't care less about what people of the same nationality have to say about it. It someone wants to be violent he would probably kick my ass too (in this example i am of the same nationality) just because i tried to interfere. People don't listen to members of their own families, how can you believe they would listen to members of their same nationality.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes it is. When a dingo kills a child and the population is culled as a result (which also happened over here), it is the fault of the dingo (and to a lesser extent, the parents of the child).
... That doesnt make sense. And if it does, it implies that you cant attack someone at fault - because you are then at fault - which is in a way one of the points I am debating against.

That doesn't make sense? You should read what you're writing down. Place responsibility where it lies. The attackers attacked innocent people. They are responsible for their action. Police are always issuing description of criminals, tall, blonde, etc. Should we target tall, blonde people because they may be criminals? That's the same kind of logic you're using. Such was the case in the Terror during the French Revolution, the hatred against the Jews before and during WWII, etc etc. A history of ignorance, that's what it is.

Quote:

This is a fair point, but would not stop people discriminating (as was well shown against Arab people living in America. Just because it may not come under a universal title of "right", does not mean that when Australians are being hacked apart by vicious Vikings who are invading the country, they are going to say "Well, we musn't discriminate against the Vikings who were already here". While the Vikings that live in Australia would be "nice" under normal conditions, they may not stay that way when they see their own kind taking over the country.

I'm talking about an "ought," not an "is." There will be people who will discriminate, that is a given, but do you really think that because another person starts discriminating, that you should as well?

0 Replies

Quote:

You should read what you're writing down.
You must be pretty naive
you can't be serious

Now see, I get sick of that sort of sh!t. In a debate you are not supposed to attack the person in question, but his ideas. If I have attacked either of your persons, let me know.

Quote:

You must be pretty naive to believe that because i'm of the same nationality with somebody i have a power over him and i can stop him from being violent with a clap of my hands

I dont believe I said this, please attack what I actually said only.

Quote:

Place responsibility where it lies. The attackers attacked innocent people.

The attackers did not mean to attack innocent people, the assumption was that they were not innocent because they were lebanese, and that lebanese people had been harassing Australias. In a war "innocent" people often get killed (civilians etc), but this does not mean the war is not justified. The innocent people would not be hurt if it was possible - but it is often not.

Quote:

Police are always issuing description of criminals, tall, blonde, etc. Should we target tall, blonde people because they may be criminals?

No we should target criminals. Criminals are the group for discrimination. I have not seen any evidence that blonde, tall people have a general tendancy for criminal behaviour. A real world example would have been more appropriate. Other groups such as "people who look like thugs" like people in gangs etc, are more likely to do criminal acts and ARE discriminated against.

Quote:

That's the same kind of logic you're using

So that'd be wrong.

Quote:

the hatred against the Jews before and during WWII, etc etc. A history of ignorance, that's what it is.

I dont see what the Jews did wrong to be honest. That was a result of facism, which includes discrimination against and 'removal' of people who are not the dominant people in a nation. Perhaps this makes the nation more powerful when it goes to war, I dont know. Massacering Jews was not justifyable discrimination, it was grossely extreme. Even if they did do anything wrong, racial extermination is pretty much impossible to justify.

Quote:

but do you really think that because another person starts discriminating, that you should as well?

Yes, but only if I agree with their reasons.

Quote:

It (IF) someone wants to be violent he would probably kick my ass too (in this example i am of the same nationality)

That it is wrong. Thats like saying because we (allied troops) are killing germans, we will also have a tendancy to kill allied troops.

0 Replies

Discrimination and war aren't the same thing so please stop making these comparisons because they are a little too far fetched, but, to use your example, if we (allied troops) are killing germans and i, a member of the allied troops would say i don't want to kill germans anymore and i would interfere and try to protect germans i would be labeled as a traitor and probably shot by my own comrades.

0 Replies

So that's what could have happened to members of the lebanese community that tried to convince the violent ones to stop doing what they were doing. They would have gotten their ass kicked. Indeed i did miss your point and you never said that it's the fault of the innocent, but let's say that you go to a football game and a part of the supporters that sit in the same area as you, start getting very violent. The police has to step in, right ? But how would you like it if the cops beat you sensless just because you sat in the same area where the violent supporters sat.

0 Replies

Quote:

if we (allied troops) are killing germans and i, a member of the allied troops would say i don't want to kill germans anymore and i would interfere and try to protect germans i would be labeled as a traitor and probably shot by my own comrades.

That is correct.

Quote:

Discrimination and war aren't the same thing so please stop making these comparisons

That is correct, but I dare you to point out one statement I made that implies war IS discrimination. Againt, attack things I actually say please.

Quote:

So that's what could have happened to members of the lebanese community that tried to convince the violent ones to stop doing what they were doing.

I dont follow this. I cant see how it follows on or challenges my previous statements, but that might be coz im losing track. (feel free to use quotes)

Quote:

But how would you like it if the cops beat you sensless just because you sat in the same area where the violent supporters sat.

The group responsible for the wrong-doing in this case are decernable only by the fact that they are being violent - and the police should thus only 'beat senseless' the people who are being violent. Men (the violent people would be men) who were nearby and not interested in rioting would have to make it clear that they did not belong to the violent group.

0 Replies

[blank]

0 Replies

You never literaly said war is discrimination but your favorite example of righteous discrimination is a war situation (vikings invading Australia).
"I dont follow this. I cant see how it follows on or challenges my previous statements, but that might be coz im losing track. (feel free to use quotes)" : you tried to justify violence against the innocent, which is in itself wrong, but still, I just wanted to remove any possibility for arguments such as "well, the lebanese that did nothing about it and didn't try to stop their violent fellow lebanse, also have their part of the blame and the australians were right to kick their arse too" just so that you see that attacking innocent people is not right, and the fact that the basis for the attack is discrimination doesn't make it right either.
"The group responsible for the wrong-doing in this case are decernable only by the fact that they are being violent - and the police should thus only 'beat senseless' the people who are being violent. Men (the violent people would be men) who were nearby and not interested in rioting would have to make it clear that they did not belong to the violent group." Let me clarify my point : the basis for the australians attack on innocent lebanese was just as stupid as the basis for the cops attack on the people who just happened to be in the same area : a trait that has nothing to do with the actual fact. When violence bursts in a stadium the cops have no clue on exactly who started it(since there's quite a lot of people in a certain area), just like the australians had no clue on who exactly were the lebanse responsible for the herassment. The counter reaction is exactly the same and just as stupid, and if you're trying to tell me that cops should listen to you when you're trying to "make it clear that you're innocent" just because you say you're innocent, then the australians should have listen to the innocent lebanese that tried "to make it clear that they were innocent" too. But they didn't quite do that, now did they ?

0 Replies

You never literaly said war is discrimination but your favorite example of righteous discrimination is a war situation (vikings invading Australia).
"I dont follow this. I cant see how it follows on or challenges my previous statements, but that might be coz im losing track. (feel free to use quotes)" : you tried to justify violence against the innocent, which is in itself wrong, but still, I just wanted to remove any possibility for arguments such as "well, the lebanese that did nothing about it and didn't try to stop their violent fellow lebanse, also have their part of the blame and the australians were right to kick their arse too" just so that you see that attacking innocent people is not right, and the fact that the basis for the attack is discrimination doesn't make it right either.
"The group responsible for the wrong-doing in this case are decernable only by the fact that they are being violent - and the police should thus only 'beat senseless' the people who are being violent. Men (the violent people would be men) who were nearby and not interested in rioting would have to make it clear that they did not belong to the violent group." Let me clarify my point : the basis for the australians attack on innocent lebanese was just as stupid as the basis for the cops attack on the people who just happened to be in the same area : a trait that has nothing to do with the actual fact. When violence bursts in a stadium the cops have no clue on exactly who started it(since there's quite a lot of people in a certain area), just like the australians had no clue on who exactly were the lebanse responsible for the herassment. The counter reaction is exactly the same and just as stupid, and if you're trying to tell me that cops should listen to you when you're trying to "make it clear that you're innocent" just because you say you're innocent, then the australians should have listen to the innocent lebanese that tried "to make it clear that they were innocent" too. But they didn't quite do that, now did they ?

0 Replies

You never literaly said war is discrimination but your favorite example of righteous discrimination is a war situation (vikings invading Australia).
"I dont follow this. I cant see how it follows on or challenges my previous statements, but that might be coz im losing track. (feel free to use quotes)" : you tried to justify violence against the innocent, which is in itself wrong, but still, I just wanted to remove any possibility for arguments such as "well, the lebanese that did nothing about it and didn't try to stop their violent fellow lebanse, also have their part of the blame and the australians were right to kick their arse too" just so that you see that attacking innocent people is not right, and the fact that the basis for the attack is discrimination doesn't make it right either.
"The group responsible for the wrong-doing in this case are decernable only by the fact that they are being violent - and the police should thus only 'beat senseless' the people who are being violent. Men (the violent people would be men) who were nearby and not interested in rioting would have to make it clear that they did not belong to the violent group." Let me clarify my point : the basis for the australians attack on innocent lebanese was just as stupid as the basis for the cops attack on the people who just happened to be in the same area : a trait that has nothing to do with the actual fact. When violence bursts in a stadium the cops have no clue on exactly who started it(since there's quite a lot of people in a certain area), just like the australians had no clue on who exactly were the lebanse responsible for the herassment. The counter reaction is exactly the same and just as stupid, and if you're trying to tell me that cops should listen to you when you're trying to "make it clear that you're innocent" just because you say you're innocent, then the australians should have listen to the innocent lebanese that tried "to make it clear that they were innocent" too. But they didn't quite do that, now did they ?

0 Replies

You never literaly said war is discrimination but your favorite example of righteous discrimination is a war situation (vikings invading Australia).
"I dont follow this. I cant see how it follows on or challenges my previous statements, but that might be coz im losing track. (feel free to use quotes)" : you tried to justify violence against the innocent, which is in itself wrong, but still, I just wanted to remove any possibility for arguments such as "well, the lebanese that did nothing about it and didn't try to stop their violent fellow lebanse, also have their part of the blame and the australians were right to kick their arse too" just so that you see that attacking innocent people is not right, and the fact that the basis for the attack is discrimination doesn't make it right either.
"The group responsible for the wrong-doing in this case are decernable only by the fact that they are being violent - and the police should thus only 'beat senseless' the people who are being violent. Men (the violent people would be men) who were nearby and not interested in rioting would have to make it clear that they did not belong to the violent group." Let me clarify my point : the basis for the australian's attack on innocent lebanese was just as stupid as the basis for the cops attack on the people who just happened to be in the same area : a trait that has nothing to do with the actual fact. When violence bursts in a stadium the cops have no clue on exactly who started it(since there's quite a lot of people in a certain area), just like the australians had no clue on who exactly were the lebanse responsible for the herassment. The counter reaction is exactly the same and just as stupid, and if you're trying to tell me that cops should listen to you when you're trying to "make it clear that you're innocent" just because you say you're innocent, then the australians should have listened to the innocent lebanese that tried "to make it clear that they were innocent" too. But they didn't quite do that, now did they ? Also to possibly end this pointless debate about the righteousness of discrimination, i'll make a statement that you'll probably agree with : discrimination sometimes works and it delivers the desired results, but that will NEVER MAKE IT RIGHT.

0 Replies

Please excuse the repetition of my post but everytime i tried to post it A2K returned a "Post failed : DEBUG MODE" error message so i tried it 4 times unaware that it was actually posted.

0 Replies

Apparently, the powers-that-be on A2K are working on the server. We have all been getting strange messages.

0 Replies

Quote:

The attackers did not mean to attack innocent people, the assumption was that they were not innocent because they were lebanese, and that lebanese people had been harassing Australias. In a war "innocent" people often get killed (civilians etc), but this does not mean the war is not justified. The innocent people would not be hurt if it was possible - but it is often not.

But they did, and it's not war. Even in a war, soldiers shouldn't purposely attack civilians because of their nationality or citizenship, or else it's a war crime.

I don't know what the situation in your country exactly was, but if they made the decision to attack all Lebanese people, and all people who appear to be middle-eastern, then that is not right.

It is one thing to suspect that someone might be guilty, but it is another to accuse the person without any evidence. What is necessary is for people to understand this.

Quote:

No we should target criminals. Criminals are the group for discrimination. I have not seen any evidence that blonde, tall people have a general tendancy for criminal behaviour. A real world example would have been more appropriate. Other groups such as "people who look like thugs" like people in gangs etc, are more likely to do criminal acts and ARE discriminated against.

But if the criminals were all blonde and tall, then by your logic, we should discriminate against tall and blonde people because they present a possibility of being the criminals. Of course the innocent people would be termed as "collateral damage" and hey it's necessary right? Rolling Eyes

And do Lebanese people in nature have a tendency to beat up Australians? Or is it only some idiots who happened to be Lebanese?

Quote:

I dont see what the Jews did wrong to be honest. That was a result of facism, which includes discrimination against and 'removal' of people who are not the dominant people in a nation. Perhaps this makes the nation more powerful when it goes to war, I dont know. Massacering Jews was not justifyable discrimination, it was grossely extreme. Even if they did do anything wrong, racial extermination is pretty much impossible to justify.

When people discriminate, they blame faults on those who they discriminate against. The "Jews" did nothing wrong.

Quote:

Yes, but only if I agree with their reasons.

Their reasons can be generally described in the form of

"
P1: A looks like X
P2: A is a criminal
C: Then all X must be targeted as criminals
"

How do you jump from P1 and P2 to C?

You can say that something is necessary, but I can also say that it is necessary for a person's humanity to not be violated. If there is a risk in doing so, then it is a risk that must be taken. We all take this form of risk everyday. We risk sitting next to a potential sociopath, we risk walking beside a killer. We risk our lives everytime we are with strangers. In a situation involving discrimination, the same risk exist but this time some of those who felt safe because they do not fit the appearance or whatever of the discriminated group feel that they can now just pick on people, because after all, they're not the one discriminated against right? Many conflicts and tragedies have occured because of this.

0 Replies