Sochi 2014: Israeli Gay rights protests target Russia's games

they all the same, Orientalic constructions is a base of western culture/ mentality

 

many times i passed that place as i walk around the center of Moscow... but do you know that that 'museum' gets support from Israel and America?

 

so you think Gulag was faked by USA and Jews?

 

http://www.g-to-g.com/?version=eng&module=7&page=3

 

Perhaps, but it's also a matter of rational skepticism. Logical positivism and rational skepticism are much better things to base perceptions off of than traditionalism. The same goes for laws.

We've had this discussion before, but natural rights make a lot more sense than theocracy.

 

Of course, you haven't seen them all, so your gratuitous generalization amounts to nothing more than a preconceived assumption/notion that has no basis in fact.

 

yes, exactly.

people die natural death even in prisons, don't you know?.. how many died at large back then?
go and do the counting better than this.

 

Both natural rights and theocracy are identical in the sense that neither are based on observable facts. One can argue that proponents of natural rights are primitive individuals who base their ideals on a theory that they pulled out of no where and makes them 'feel good.'

 

When they reference something like "rights from the creator", you could say that.

However, many atheists and agnostics still support natural rights from a practical basis.

In terms of maximizing freedoms, a combination of natural rights and voluntarism is best.

I understand that not every society is interested in maximizing freedoms, but generally speaking, the further away you get from that intent, the less free your society becomes.

- - - Updated - - -

The Katyn massacre was faked too, eh?

 

I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Russia/Putin because they simply hold the moral high ground on this issue.

 

No, I mean the whole notion of natural rights itself.

Sure, if your only concern is maximising as much freedom as possible. Other people have more...lofty goals for society.

 

That's an interesting theory, Goomba, but I would argue that the concept of natural rights and law is based on observable facts - i.e., what is beneficial and/or harmful to people.

William Faulkner won a Nobel Prize illustrating this in his works about the disastrous consequences of chattel slavery in the Antebellum South in America for both the slaves AND the people who enslaved them.
.

 

I don't see much lofty about theocracy, but to each their own.

- - - Updated - - -

If bigotry is what you consider moral high ground, that's rather puzzling but somewhat predictable.

 

Other than the ban on disseminating gay propaganda to children (which I personally don't have a problem with), what discriminatory laws have been imposed on gays in Russia?

 

I was referring more to the social environment.

Gays suffer a lot of abuse there from the general population.

 

Which is subjective to a certain extent. Religion and philosophy too can give us reasons as to why proposed rulings would be beneficial to society. And unlike natural rights, we can come to more concrete assumptions and conclusions, minus the nihilism.

 

might well be, yes.

 

There is nothing concrete about religion.

 

That would depend on how one looks at it.

 

A religious text is simply that. Faith is not concrete.

The only things that are concrete must be empirically determined.

 

i dont need to watch them all , i know western red line of story telling and all main formats . its my job ...

 

you must be crazy, even today you can find 1000s death camps around polar circle

they die, but 25% makes Gulag look more like extermination institution then a labor one

 

By concrete, I mean not relative. Religion and philosophy can certainly allow one to start with concrete assumptions and end with with concrete conclusions regarding ethics (although the latter is the difficult part).

There are things that simply can't be empirically determined. Adam Smith did not come to his theory of natural rights by empirically determining anything. That hasn't stopped people from basing their moral behaviour on his principles. It's just that in their case, the end result is moral relativism.

 

did he name any positive effects?

 

and those 2?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurapaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge