Taiwan had its election on January 16th, elevating Tsai English Language (her real name) to the presidency. Tsai represented the DPP, which is roughly equivalent to the island’s progressive party. She beat the traditionally minded KMT candidate and a third party handily, with about 60% of the vote.
Her victory was celebrated by the young and celebrities with a similar kind of euphoria as when Barack Obama took office, with many happy that Tsai is female.
The DPP is seen as younger and more enlightened than the stodgy KMT, which is the party of Chiang Kai-shek, who was the leader of the Republic of China before being chased to Taiwan in 1950 by the bloodthirsty mainland communists. Which makes it sound strange that DPP is the anti-China party. But it’s only odd when you consider that well into the 1970s Taiwan claimed to be the legitimate authority of all China. That is, of course, no longer the case. Taiwan moved from its authoritarian nature and became a modern democracy in the late 1980s, early 1990s, and it maintains a weird and touchy relationship with China. That is a gross simplification, but it captures some large currents.
Part of the DPP’s appeal are to those who consider themselves Taiwanese and not Chinese. For instance, many, largely in the south of Taiwan, make a point of speaking Taiwanese and not Mandarin. But it is also true that much of the DPP’s pull, especially among the young, is its progressive stance on many questions. For instance, a DPP “green” paper, the Taipei Times, is deeply concerned about global warming and the “rights” of those claiming same-sex attraction. Et cetera. The blue papers return insult for insult, but with less vitriol, not being as progressive.
The picture will be entirely familiar to those living in older democracies, with folks there understanding democracies force politics on its citizens, with the concomitant acrimony necessarily following. For example, what is the best official attitude to take on, say, the Muslim migrant crisis in Europe? An equivalent question in scope is how Taiwan should treat China economically. In both cases the majority of citizens can offer little of value, for the trivially simple reason that they have no experience in statecraft and little understanding of history and so forth beyond their own family.
Yet democracy runs on egalitarianism, which insists lack of ability, interest, or sense is no barrier to participation. Indeed, even to mention these matters, as I’m doing now, is seen as gauche. The fallacy that one ignorant man is of no help but that a million ignorant men can vote its way to truth will and must be believed. This is why democracies are corrosive of tradition.
As a for-instance, consider same-sex “marriage”, i.e. gmarriage (for government-marriage). That democratic governments have the conceit that they can define marriage is the first and major problem. The second is then invoking this fictional power. Gmarriage, incidentally, is always misunderstood. What’s troubling is not that two persons of the same sex choose to call themselves “married”, which is of little to no interest, but that democratic governments must force everybody to call that pair “married”, too. Gmarriage is totalitarian. Which, as readers familiar with history recognize, is another common trait of advanced democracies.
In Taiwan, Tsai English Language is not married, which is far less usual there than in the West. She has a fondness for cats and has publicly revealed her support for gmarriage. She said, “In the face of love, everyone is equal. Let everyone have the freedom to love and to pursue their happiness. I am Tsai Ing-wen, and I support marriage equality.” Raw egalitarianism.
Immediately after her election, a group called Pride Watch Taiwan released a survey showing support of Legislative Yuan members for gmarriage. The DPP had 32 members agree, and 4 disagree; but the amazing thing was 32 members didn’t have the guts to say either way. The ratio is skewed more toward disagree in the KMT, but still 21 members (60%) are waiting to see which way the wind blows.
It’s blowing away from traditional Confucianism with its heavy and significant emphasis on duty and family (which, of course, does not technically exist in gmarriages, since the couples cannot procreate; incidentally, egalitarianism will soon attack the “couple” notion). Abandoning 2,500 years of culture in a short 25 winters is something a democracy can certainly do, but will it happen in Taiwan? Those in the DPP who only wanted to oppose China and are satisfied with cultural traditions might not be ready. But it’s not a bad bet to take.
Glad you said what was in the picture . My first impression was chocolate covered bats.
Abandoning 2,500 years of culture in a short 25 winters is something a democracy can certainly do…
It only takes a generation. Technology-assisted communication methods now gives the totalitarians an asymmetry of power that can overcome cultural inertia rapidly.
My question to gays (that, so far, not one has had the moral courage or, personal integrity to even try to answer) is, okay, now that you have marriage, where would YOU draw the line on marriage? They won’t answer because they can’t without impugning their own status that, while it may be gallantly “egalitarian'” it is the universal acid that will corrode the stability and base of our society. It opens up MUCH larger questions far beyond no longer being able to say no to any form of marriage, it begs the question of law itself. Any and ALL laws can now be fully considered as unjust, unfair and discriminatory and worthy of ignoring…as the Obama Marxist-agenda-driven regime has been permitted to do for its entire anti- constitutional reign of terror…unequal application of law being their credo, ergo, laws are meaningless. So, where, why, how, when do we now get to draw lines now that the line thread has become permanently unraveled thanks to gay marriage? What justification for law and order in a society exists now? Who died and made anonymous legislators and judges God who can edict through a corrupt law-making process and biased interpretation who can live as they want and who cannot, under pain and penalty of law? I view gay marriage as the thumb being pulled out of the hole in the dike and our entire societal village living and existing entirely in it’s fast devolving, degrading shadow…in the long term, gay marriage is meaningless unto itself, however, if viewed as a hyper-corrosive catalyst for undermining the foundation of our society and accelerating its destruction, then, it achieves total meaning and irrevocable consequence.
Perspective:
The number of same sex marriages in both the us and the uk are vanishingly small.
less than half of a percent.
If society needs fixing I suggest starting with the engine and then considering the fluffy dice.
Guess that means Tsai supports pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, throuples, and polygamy. Everyone is equal, right?
Progress is always right, even if it’s complete totalitarianism. The old is always wrong. Surely everyone must know this by now. (/sarc, if I seriously need to put that here….)
Tim O: I think the pulling of the thumb out of the dam started back when “single mothers” were elevated to godlike status. When only one parent is needed, bonding no longer matters. One can use any source for sperm—a roll on a pool table in a bar is all it takes. As the bonds of family eroded, then abortion become common (for those unintended consequences of the roll on the pool table), and the government became the provider to the “single parent family” (a new definition of family, of course). Government then is the source of all that is good and cannot be cut or limited because people are so helpless. As we have seen in Europe, where the invading muslims are pillaging the place, the government becomes “tolerant” of all things bad and angry at all things good. The decline from that point is very rapid.
Joy: I like your comment. By the time we got to gmarriage, the engine was hemorrhaging oil and anti-freeze.
Mr. Briggs,
Ah, supporting gay marriage is equivalent to abandoning its 2,500 years of culture? All the 2,500 years of culture? What a rich culture it has! Blowing away from traditional Confucianism? Is that all so-called traditional Confucianism about? “Family” technically doesn’t exist in gay marriage? Confucius advocated having children? Well, by the same reasoning, being single has the same effect too.
BTW, how did you come up with the numbers 2,500 years and 25 winters?
Dr. Tsai’s first name of two characters happens to coincide with the translation of “English Language,” however, it has distinct meaning to people who know Chinese. As her name implies, she is indeed outstanding in her learning.
Yes, though all fluent in Mandarin, some people in Taiwan still insist on speaking their family dialects as a way of protesting and and many of them have relatives who were brutally killed by Chiang’s KMT’s soldiers for merely so unluckily being seen by the soldiers. Well, Taiwan was once occupied by Japanese, so people also understand the importance of preservation of culture and language. Taiwanese government has been intensively encouraging citizens to speak their family dialect.
…
I wish you hadn’t written this post because you evidently are not familiar with the culture, history and politics of Taiwan… and China. Of course, it’s your prerogative to write whatever you wish based on your political ideologies and whatever reports you choose to believe.
“What’s troubling is not that two persons of the same sex choose to call themselves “married”, which is of little to no interest, but that democratic governments must force everybody to call that pair “married”, too. Gmarriage is totalitarian.”
You do not know anything about history, democracy, or totalitarianism. No is is forcing anyone to call anything anything. You can be as creepy and backwards as you like. I used to know some Romanians. I could probably still look them up. Perhaps you’d like to talk to them about what life if like in a totalitarian state. Just won’t get your feelings hurts when they laugh at you for your petty whining.
JMJ
Exactly Sheri, so to fix it, treat the cause not the symptoms which will take care of themselves. If you don’t know the cause then you are left with no choice but management.
It’s not clear to me that all the problems are precisely linked either.
A sort of emotional madness has set in.
With regards to fairness, it was always idealistic and used appeals to emotion. Unfortunately the response has been equally emotional which isn’t a help.
JH,
“BTW, how did you come up with the numbers 2,500 years and 25 winters?” To quote Barbie, “Math is hard.” Roughly the years from Confucius until now, and the years from when Taiwan devolved in a Democracy until the election of English Language.
JMJ,
Bake that cake! Or pay ruinous fines, lose your business and home, and attend mandatory reeducation camp. For starters. Romania 1947, here we come!
Okay, I’m going to try communicating with Jersey on his level:
You know nothing about history, totalitarianism or anything else as far as I can tell. You are the champion of perversion and lording over others lives in the false name of tolerance. You fear opinions different than your own and probably go in the back room and cry when people disagree with you. You’re all about control and hate. (Try reading what people in North Korea live like—the stories of those who escaped are horrifying. While you’re at it, check out Sharia Law. Totalitarian regimes are brutal, except for the chosen few used as propaganda pieces until they are no longer useful, then they feed them to dogs without bothering to kill them first. You find this okay? You really are a very, very nasty person. No one should ever want to be like you.)
Joy: Definitely a sort of emotional madness has set in. Perhaps it’s not surprising since throughout most of history people were controlled by their governments, murder and mayhem were the order of the day, poverty was normal, etc. Sometimes I think we just happen to live in one of the more enlightened periods and we should be happy to have been fortunate to have seen even a glimpse of what free people can be like.
Pingback: The Corrosive Effect Of Democracy, Far East Edition | Reaction Times
Sheri, it’s hard for JMJ to break his habit of TRUMP-eting.
An odd paradox – in a same sex marriage the couple do not have equal parental rights. Link to Australian legislative framework below. Someone might wish to check this unequal outcome for the participants in equality for the USA.
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/families-policy-and-law/10-gay-and-lesbian-parenting-legislative-response
Briggs,
Who is English Language? Does the fact that a brilliant woman could become a president bothers you?
Who is Barbie? Did Barbie really complain that math is hard? Or you just imagined that Barbie said so? I heard plenty of students, both male and female, complain that math, including rounding numbers, is hard though.
JH: Barbie is a doll and she did say “Math is so hard”—or rather the manufacturer had her built to say that. It was 1992 and Barbie had 270 phrases she uttered. After the American Association of University Women attacked Mattel for their insensitivity and male chauvinism and at least a dozen other such offenses, Mattel removed the math phrase from the chip. I would imagine that if one had the original with the 270 phrases, one could retire by selling it, so at least that person was happy with the pushy women’s group.
Tsai Ing-wen is a progressive, a cat lover and a LGBT lover who has been compared to Angela Merkel, that gem of a woman encouraging rape and sexual assault in her own country. I hope Taiwan is ready. If a brilliant woman became president, that would be okay. Sadly, that rarely happens, and apparently not in this case—most are emotional, touchy-feely non-thinkers who just want to feel good about themselves. Not saying men are any better nowadays, either. Any thinking, brilliant leader would be welcomed, if only we could find one.
Sheri,
Thank you for taking time to write about the Barbie’s babbling of “math class is hard.” I also appreciate that you don’t call Dr. Tsai “English Language.” But you might have missed the intentiona of Briggs’ use of the quote and calling Tsai “English Language,” even though I think you must be his wife in your previous life.
Do you truely believe so?
Sheri,
Apparently? What is the evidence that Tasi is not a brilliant woman? Just because her stance on gay marriage is different from yours?
JH: Tsai’s last name apparently translates to “written English”. Beyond that, you are correct, I have no idea what Briggs means. I assure you I was not his wife in another life.
Yes, I believe Angela Merkel is encouraging rape and sexual assault in her own country. She let in the rapists and refuses to do anything to stop the practice. It is reported she is shutting down internet reports of the actions of the Muslims. That pretty much says “Go ahead and rape my citizens”.
I believe I noted the touchy-feely nature of said person. Much of what is said about her concentrates on her parents, her ethnicity, her love of cats. None of this has a thing to do with running a country. She dropped out of politics for a while after losing the election in 2012, which is interesting. If I could find a picture of her taking a selfie, that should pretty much say it all. I’ll see what I can do. (And yes, being for same-sex “marriage” is an indication of emotional, progressive, dump-the-past thinking that leads to societal downfall, so that would indicate a lack of brilliance.)
Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#99)
I am not a person steeped in traditions, but I generally enjoy the company of traditional people. I think most traditions evolved as solutions to social problems. Not all traditions solved these problems in the same way, but, just like good engineering designs, many traditions converged on very similar solutions. If the never ending attack on traditions and traditional people successfully overthrows current traditions in a relatively short time, the underlying problems these traditions addressed still exist. What then? I have seen quotations attributed to Schumpeter regarding the answer to “what then?”, but I have never encountered Schumpeter’s full analysis.
Sheri: I have become suspicious that JMJ is the creation of Dr. Briggs. He seems like a too perfect litany of the political opposition. Have you ever seen them together?
Sheri,
No, you were not his wife in your previous life. I don’t believe in rebirth. It is my way of attributing unknown explanations instead of speculating as to why you and Briggs think so much alike. No, I wasn’t really asking who the silly math-class-is-hard Barbie was either. (I have raised two girls.) Those questions were not meant for you to answer.
I assure you Tsai does not support pedophilia, etc., which is your conclusion derived from your linear thinking. According to Confucius, other’s religion belief is none of my business, but it’s my “duty” as a decent human being to respect the belief as if it is true. Which is probably one of the reasons that opposing same-sex marriage by appealing to the religious belief would gain little traction in Taiwan. People with a college education are assumed to know w that a right angle is equal to 90 degrees. Not knowing it may be seen normal here but not in Taiwan. Just another difference between Taiwan and here.
No, I am not here to win an argument, but to understand. Such attitude is also taught by Confucius. It’s OK to say that you don’t understand or agree with what marriage equality is about, but to think that people who disagree with you use only their hearts not their brains a bit too arrogant for my taste.
My point- Taiwan has a very different culture. An outsider’s opinion can be nonsense or objective or a reflection of their prejudice, depending on their knowledge of the culture. Of course, as usual, it’s your prerogative to make one-size-fit-all arguments.
K. Kilty: No, now that you mention it, I have not seen Briggs and JMJ together…..Hmmm.
JH: There does not have to be a reason why two people think alike in many things. They just do. While you did address the question to Briggs, it is not uncommon for others to answer comments put out there. It’s a public forum.
Every argument I have read for same-sex marriage is based on “equality” and “you can’t help who you love”. Those are emotion-based ideas. I call it as I see it. Emotional responses are from the “heart”. They also have very many unintended consequences, such as justifying those things you say Taiwan will not approve off. Twenty years ago in the United States, when DOMA was passed, no one would have believed 1.5% of the population would destroy that concept of marriage and brutally attack anyone who dared disagree in less than two decades. Yet here we are.
Yes, Taiwan has a very different culture. So does North Korea. As did Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, Germany today under Merkel. Heck, the headhunting native persons deep in the rainforest have a very different culture. Are you really saying I should not be judgmental of these cultures? A culture based on murder, or a culture where women are chattel (Sharia Law), are all to be respected and accepted? The muslim invaders in Europe are to be tolerated in the way they abuse women because that’s their culture?
Sheri, you an find the answer to your question in my previous comments. I have only two words for you – Golden Mean.
JH: I reread your comments and I cannot find the answer. That’s okay. I can make an educated interpolation and come up with a probable answer.
Golden Mean—The informal fallacy?
I take issue with our host calling gmarriage totalitarian because the State wants everybody to recognize it. Marriage IS a social reality and unless the society at large accepts it, the marriage does not exist in its fullness.
Hence, for gmarriage to exist in its fullness, the society at large must accept it.
This follows from the nature of marriage and society itself and would be so whatever concept of marriage was employed e.g. polygamy, child marriage etc.
The Thirteenth Amendment says: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Apparently, being declared a “public accommodation” by an anti-discrimination law is tantamount to being duly convicted of a crime.
When homosexuals were victims of coercion, intolerance, and intimidation, I was sympathetic to their cause. When they became perpetrators of coercion, intolerance, and intimidation, my sympathy switched sides.
Tim O: I see no gay person has yet to respond.
Mactoul: You are at least consistent, going along with child marriage as well as all other forms. I would note that society does most definitely not accept gmarriage at this point, whether or not the government says one is supposed to. Also, how to you reconcile gmarriage with freedom of religion, another government right, when people are driven out of business for following their religion? The ruling was handed down by the government which by definition can behave in a totalitarian fashion and was not supported by the masses. It was a tiny percentage of the population pushing for it. That equals totalitarian. It cannot be voted out, either.
Geezer: Well said.
Sheri,
For every attack you mentioned, there are probably 10 anti-gay attacks out there. So, by bringing out such attack, you are implying that you prefer having anti-gay attacks if you have to choose (as one cannot really control such incidents commit by crazy people).
I am lucky to have the opportunities to have worked with people, including Musilin women who are so often misunderstood, of various religions from all over the world. There is no way I would make blanket statements about their identity and religious beliefs base on extreme events. Which is your and Briggs’ cup of tea, not mine. As if you willingly let those extreme events form and dominate your worldview. Your reality and Briggs’, not mine. Yes, go ahead and accuse me of burying my head in th sand, your way of speech and Briggs’.
Not making blanket statement is not equivalent to denyiny the existence of problems. But logical person like you know this.
Again, judge whatever you wish, but to think the your judgement is the logical one is a bit too arrogant for my taster. Rationalization doen’t make friends only with your perceived opponents and enemies.
JH: Fabricating imaginary attacks is not scientific and not really all that great of a psychic activity either. Unless you have evidence of these imaginary attacks, I really don’t care. I can make up stuff all day long about homosexuals being the reason for so much child abuse, etc, but I try to deal in facts, not fiction.
You are the one applying a religious belief or a moral stance to all people. I am addressing the religion, not the individual. I am addressing actual societies and their forms of government, as with North Korea. I have no doubt that religion is constantly rewritten and/or ignored by many, otherwise we’d all be one church and one government. You are assuming I have never worked with anyone different from myself, yet you know nothing about me or my past. Again, imagination, not fact.
It is not my belief that “being liked is more important than being right”. I believe that right is more important. Whether or not this wins friends matters not. I don’t want friends that are damaging humanity. Why would I? Why would I want to be friends with homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, etc.? In spite of the claimed stories about Jesus being friends with such people, he was not friends. All his friends were apostles who believed in him and in God. He was interested in thieves and adulterers because they needed saving, not encouraged. He forgave those who admitted their sin.
Sheri,
Ah, so that “1.5% of the population brutally attack anyone who dared disagree’ is a fact, yet all the anti-gay attacks are fabricated by me and the media. I got you.
Ah, just like Briggs, in the name of God or being right, as if you know God and you are always on the right side.
No time to respond to the rest of your comments, plus I have no idea what they are about.
Joy: Nice try. I did not say gays weren’t attacked. I did not say that the 1.5% of the population that is gay attack always—there are gay activists just as there were Christian activists that went over the line. It is interesting that you quote the 1.5% of the population, since this clearly indicates that gmarriage is a tiny minority demanding its rights when 98.5% of the population is not affected and many did not want to have the “rights” called valid.
It is fascinating that people conclude that Christians are “always right” and fail to recognize that progressives are exactly the same way. You argue there is no “right” yet you no more know this than you claim Briggs or I know about what we believe. While I often do refer to God’s choices, those choices can be defended without including God. My morality is based on rational thought and sociology, both past and present, as much as it is on religion. People tend to ignore that fact, though, since it’s much easier to call it “Christian” and dismiss it.
Feel free to skip my comments anytime you want. Just please don’t tell me you are trying to understand. Clearly, you are not.
Additional note on this to all: I find it fascinating that the same “progressives” (using scary quotes because y’all are so literal here) who denounce morality as old-fashioned are out there screaming we need to stop with burning fossil fuels and go back to those nostalgic wind mills and solar power. So morality only moves forward but technology of the past can revived? Why? If new and modern is the correct way to think, then dump the turbines and the solar panels, along with that morality. Install nuclear, embrace GMO’s and use modern medicines. Be consistant.
Sheri, I copied and pasted what you wrote. Have I argued there is no “right”? You and Briggs don’t know about what you believe? All Christians think they are right? (You and Briggs obviously don’t represent all Christians. ) … The same “progressiveness” denounce morality as old fashioned? What about fossil fuel and solar power? Be consistent? What are all these about?
JH: Yes, you copied my statement about 1.5%. You did not disagree with the figure, or if so, you did not so state.
Of course I know what I believe.
The last comment was about people who say morality is old-fashioned and not something we need today, yet they want to return to the “noble savage” concept of human beings or to technology that failed in the past and still does. This is arguing the past is useful when it fits one’s agenda and that it is not if it does not fit the agenda. It was addressing comments such as JMJ saying “You can be as creepy and backwards as you like.” He often argues we are damaging the planet with our progress, yet he refuses to consider the new immorality may be doing the same thing.
So what alternative to democracy would you suggest? A dictatorship? A theocracy? The system may not be perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than the alternatives on offer.
“Yet democracy runs on egalitarianism, which insists lack of ability, interest, or sense is no barrier to participation. Indeed, even to mention these matters, as I’m doing now, is seen as gauche. The fallacy that one ignorant man is of no help but that a million ignorant men can vote its way to truth will and must be believed. This is why democracies are corrosive of tradition.” – Briggs
The assumption here being that just because something is in any sense traditional, it must therefore also be good, both for society and the individuals that comprise that society. Things like slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism and circumcision. Well, if you like ‘tradition’ so much, then I would suggest you move to that hellhole we know of as Saudi Arabia. They’re very traditional, deeply religious over there.
“Why would I want to be friends with homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, etc.?” – Sheri
Is it lonely and cold up there at the top, looking down on all us ‘sinners’? What was it again that Christ said about not judging others, and not casting the first stone? Did you even bother to read those passages?
The sooner we dispense with Christianity, and every other failed religion, the better off humanity will be, and the greater our chances of surviving the next 1,000 years will also be.
Peter A.: Is it tough living with such simplistic, erroneous views of things?
Nice misuse of the “not judging others”, too. One supposes if individuals like yourself did not misquote religion and rail against it on false assumptions, religion might actually be beneficial. Of course, I can send you on a one-way trip to that utopia, North Korea, where you will not be encumbered by such difficulties as having religious people around. Interesting that North Korea is your utopia—and you call me judgmental and damaging to society. Seriously, Peter, check out that mirror.
Sheri,
“It was a tiny percentage of the population pushing for it”
But a substantial fraction of people supports it. Perhaps a majority does not oppose it. There were no mass protests of the kind seen in France and some other European countries. So in this sense, there was nothing undemocratic about it.
Mactoul: It was not voted on. Actions were through the courts to declare bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, including DOMA, signed into law by Bill Clinton. In places where votes were taken, same-sex marriage was often banned until the Supreme Court overturned such bans. The only state that actually voted yes was Maine. Court decisions overruling that which citizens have voted to ban are not democratic.
From CNN: “Fourteen couples and two widowers challenged the bans. Attorneys Mary Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier presented their case before the Court, arguing that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right for all people and should not be left to popular vote.”
Translation: The government does not care what the citizens want or do not want and will override any vote that is not in line with their ideology. Again, not democracy.
As a Western refugee living in Taiwan, it troubles me to see what’s happening in Taiwan.
The China issue complicates things, of course.
That aside, it’s like the Taiwanese have looked around at all the failed/failing states of the Anglosphere and broader West and rather than draw the obvious conclusion that maybe it wouldn’t be such a good idea to copy them, they’re going to follow suit, seemingly for the status signalling. After all, it’s more important to be popular than right/successful. The poz is strong in this one. That’s democracy for you though.
In twenty years, when Taiwan has tried all of this nonsense and still hasn’t found its magic Whig bullet to all of its current problems, and things are actually worse, no doubt everyone will double down though. Of course, by that point, China probably will finally take over Taiwan and they will be the ones who have to sort all of this nonsense out because the US likely won’t be in a position to do so (even if it wanted to, which it wouldn’t).
I don’t know where Taiwanese really think they’re going with all of this. Then again, this time is always different.
North Korea has nothing to do with the discussion, nor does climate change, pedophilia or fossil fuels.
The cliche totalitarianism has overtones of Christopher Hitchens with respect to argument against religion. He employed sarcasm and satire and got the loudest laugh however he often lost the argument although the audience would consider it a win. This is a trap employed by media on TV and radio. Too many are let off by bad argument.
To quote Mike D, all men must have a master.
As for persecution, there are laws against murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, assault, actual and grievous bodily harm, there are defamation and slander laws.
Nobody needs to get into how many gay people or anti gay people it’s okay to persecute. That’s been sorted out hundreds of years ago.
What is happening again is that the government changes the law, the law is implemented (generally civil law) and the public becomes angry with the claimant rather than the government.
As for the man with the cake, he is odious. The couple made their stand and quite right.
Sometimes it costs to make a stand. A judge took the largest bucket airline company to court to reclaim £40. Of course it will have cost him much more but as he said it was worth the money and they had to agree to settle. One IS allowed to resist the law.
All arguments can be challenged. Judges must enforce the law that is their role.
Joy: North Korea was germane to Peter A’s desire to remove religion for daily life. It’s a utopia for the secular community.
People become angry with the claimant because the claimant is the one who pushed the rock off the cliff onto the village, so to speak. The claimant instigated the change. He/she/it is ground zero.
So your comment on the cake says gays have rights and Christians do not. Interesting. It looks like you are helping push that rock. I expect you to agree that Muslims have prayer breaks and Christians get zip. This is not freedom of religion, it’s preferring one religion over another.
Judges do not enforce the law. They interpret it and rewrite it in many cases, including the supreme court. In the past, they enforced the law.
Sheri,
I don’t need to state whether I disagree with your statement to make my point. To correct all your strange and illogical statements would vaccum up so much of my time. I have enough homework to correct on my desk.
I could have put a question mark right after the majority of the sentences in your responses to my comments. For example, you said, “I didn’t say gays weren’t ‘the attacked,” which is just another out-no-where repsone to me, as if I siad that you had said so.
My heart has helped me make the decision of not insulting you as you insulted me before, though I could’ve done so in my every interaction with you. Political correctness still trumps political incorrectness in my book.
Let me ask you a question to finalize my judgement about you –
Suppose you have a son and he is a gay, would you sever all ties with him?
Sheri, anger is an emotion.
JH: Poor thing. You have a job and you are paid to do it. So sad.
“1.5% of the population brutally attack anyone who dared disagree’ is not the cut and paste of “no one would have believed 1.5% of the population would destroy that concept of marriage and brutally attack anyone who dared disagree”. If you consider them equivalent, I wish I had waited for a teacher like you who would have passed anything I wrote that was vaguely similar to the answer as correct. That explains a lot about the sad state of math and science these days.
“For every attack you mentioned, there are probably 10 anti-gay attacks out there. “
“Ah, so that “1.5% of the population brutally attack anyone who dared disagree’ is a fact, yet all the anti-gay attacks are fabricated by me and the media. I got you.”
The probable 10 anti-gay attacks is a fabricated statistic. The 1.5% of the population is gay is a statistical measure. Do all 1.5 % attack Christians and invade cake shops? I’ll check on that one.
You heart is not doing me any favors. I make statements and if you want to say something, say it. Not doing so makes you a coward, not noble.
If my son insisted on bringing his lovers over to the house, preached to my other children that gay is not a sin, etc, yes, I would. So person who does not judge, please execute your judgment on that.
Yes, anger is an emotion. What is your point?
Sheri, that is my point, you don’t understand the point you are too angry.
Joy: I don’t understand the point, but whether or not I’m “too angry” has nothing to do with it.
If a claimant does not bring an action, the government does not take action. The claimant is the cause of the action. Anger can be directed against said individual if the action was for revenge or abusive, etc. The claimant was likely angry or he would not have brought the action. You can argue he is making a stand, but that would also apply to those who are now angry at the claimant—they are making a stand against a wrong. One could also be angry at the government for it’s actions.
Looking at the gay rights, race riots, etc., it seems quite obvious that the anger is on both sides and the violent anger is mostly on those attempting to exact revenge for past and current wrongs. That is the problem. It’s not about rights, it’s about revenge.
Yes, laws can be changed as I remind people the gays did with the definition of marriage. Changing it back is equally fair.
JH: If I have a child that is a convicted sex offender, drug dealer or gang member, should I invite them to my grandchildren’s birthday party?
Sheir,
Yes, poor me, I have to work. No free handout from anyone.
This is your claim, not mine. Yes, please check out your own claim as long as you have nothing else better to do.
Joy: Once again-“1.5% of the population brutally attack anyone who dared disagree’ is not the cut and paste of “no one would have believed 1.5% of the population would destroy that concept of marriage and brutally attack anyone who dared disagree”. My claim is you did not cut and paste my statement as you stated, but rather took out portions of the statement. I know what statement I made. I did not tell you to check out if there was empirical verification, I said I could check it out.
Sheri, you keep mentioning North Korea, but what about all the other secular states around the world, like:
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Austria
4. Czech Republic
5. Denmark
No dictatorships listed there.
What about countries where ‘god’ is worshipped with a passion:
1. Saudi Arabia
2. Iran
3. United States of America
4. Sudan
5. Islamic Caliphate
The very definition of Hell on Earth, the lot of them. Now I don’t want to hear any more about North Korea, for it could even be argued that although North Korea is an officially atheistic state, in reality they see their leader as being semi-divine, in a manner similar to the way the Japanese viewed their Emperor during World War 2.
Sheri,
Peter A: Because secular states still have religions. I list those that I do because these countries actively forbid religion. You want it gone, I choose places where it is forbidden.
As for Iran, etc, you wanted Christianity abolished. You did not say anything about Islam or caliphates.
Not buying your nonsense about Korea worshipping their leader. Again, you said CHRISTIANITY. More than once.
(Yes, try to weasel out of a country that is clearly atheist. Ruins your whole mantra if you don’t. Not buying it. You know you’re wrong and you’re trying to tap dance around reality.)
I assume you do not live in the United States, since you hate it more than anything else on the planet. Such extreme hatred is interesting. And your definition of “Hell on Earth”? You are a truly sad, sad person. Or maybe a socialist parasitic creature since you listed mostly socialist countries. Go Bernie Sanders, right?
(You might want to check out Norway now that the Islamic invasion is well under way. Might not be secular much longer. Same with Denmark and Austria. Or not. It’s your belief and your utopias.)
JH: Yes, we are there. We slid downhill very rapidly. It happens.
“Holy ducks!”
These ducks saw the photo and there’s big trouble. All over the world!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxbhYXIAdcg
“5000 Ducks Stop Traffic in Taizhou, China: Hong Minghsu’s Ducks March into Chinese City”.
stampedes everywhere. My two can’t form a stampede.
“I assume you do not live in the United States, since you hate it more than anything else on the planet. Such extreme hatred is interesting. And your definition of “Hell on Earth”? You are a truly sad, sad person. Or maybe a socialist parasitic creature since you listed mostly socialist countries. Go Bernie Sanders, right?” – Sheri
Assumption correct! I don’t live there. I do, however, know enough about your country to know that I would not want to live there, primarily due to the insidious prevalence of religious hypocrisy being the guiding principle that makes your country tick. I don’t hate the U.S.A., I hate the morons like Trump and the religious extremists who are turning what could be a great country into a laughing stock, a joke, a place where creationism is considered by many to be a ‘science’, a place where it is preached that “God/Jesus wants you to be rich!” and where it is almost a crime to be poor.
Yes, GO BERNIE SANDERS! He is the only decent candidate amongst a bunch of retards who think that the way to fix problems in your country is to simply spout the odious line, “God bless America”. Your country has far too many religious nutters in high places, and it shows. He might – stress, might – be able to do something to fix things, but I somehow doubt it as long as there are so many who believe in the fairy tales of Christianity and ‘trickle-down’ economics.
P.S. The Vice-President should be Michael Moore. Imagine that! I guess we can all dream 🙂
Now Sheri, take your sedative, lie down, and cease your hysterical rantings. It isn’t good for your blood pressure. You might pop an artery (or something).
Can I embed an image in a comment here? If so, here is a portrait of Bernie Sanders from fifteen years ago:
If not, it can be found here.