@Gris: Is this not, by all definitions, a "public" forum?
I was not under the impression, that for anyone to be called for violating the discrimination act, his or her's audience had to be of a specific size or larger.
The 2 can in my view be compared, if you take the letter of the law in full.
This does not constitue in any way, that I view homosexuality as a disease or anything like that. I am just stating, that if you read the law (as it is proposed in the Faroes, and has been implemented in DK), then you can not state, that the 2 can not be compared, for one is by choise and the other not. they are both similar, and for that I would say, if we chose to, Vuz could be fined under that law for his previous statement.
I think that I can add something to the debate without making my own stance clear. And sometimes my point is easier to make, because of it. But I agree that it would be more fair, if not prudent, to do so.
Vuz stated that the two cannot be compared and I agree. Disrespecting homosexuals would be like disrespecting people with stout chins, long arms or big knees.
Our society doesn't have the problem that people with stout chins are in any danger of being wastly misunderstood and discriminated against.
Homosexuals are in this predicament however. And so are other minorities like the Jehova's Witnesses.
I think that disrespecting christians is not much diffrent than disrespecting homosexuals, communists or the Dutch.
The similarity is the act of assigning contempt on a person because of their belonging to one of the above groups.
@jogvanth
As far as I know The Turing test tries to prove/disprove Artificial Intelligence.
Vuzmans inability to create a program that passes the Turing Test, says something about his ability to program an AI capable of perfect human imitation.
- Or his lack of interest in the matter
He might still be able to create programs that preform other tasks flawlessly and is still considered a programmer.
But without it, he has failed his proof towards me.
My point is: It's equally impossible for me to prove to Vuz, that God exists, as it is for him to prove to me he is a programmer, by passing the Turing test.
If Vuzman is able to feed a sequence of coded instructions to a computer, he has without a doubt successfully proven that he is a programmer.
No further testing required.
Passing the Turing test would also prove this.
If you are able to provide Vuzman with any factual evidence of God's existence, you have without a doubt successfully proven God's existence.
grizlas wrote:
Many things tend to lead to one another. Poverty for example, tends to lead to crime, criminals released from jail tend to be repeat offenders and black taxi drivers in new york tend to mug their customers more often than white drivers. This doesnt mean that we shouldn't always give these people the benefit of the doubt.
No, but it does mean that it's a good idea to do something about it. Indeed, poverty, crime, violence, and irrational beliefs are all undesirable, both for the victims and the offenders, and society as a whole.
Torellion wrote:
Something being a physical state does not make it ok. Physical states should also be subject to scrutiny.
What I mean is that these people are born that way, and cannot change it. Homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated because of how they are born, just as women shouldn't be discriminated for happening to be born female. I hope you misunderstood me.
jogvanth wrote:
Vuz, you did not answer the question from Yutani !!!!!!!!!
Stop comparing, and answer the question.
His question wasn't directed at me, it was open to anyone... But aight. I'll answer it. I believe people shouldn't be discriminated for how they were born. This goes for women, blacks, quadriplegics, and homosexuals. I don't think I have ever discriminated against anyone for their religion, but it is obvious that they are not as deserving of indiscrimination as their belief is a choice. As for respect, I believe everyone should be treated with an appropriate level of respect, then given more or less if they have deserved this. This is done on a personal basis and has nothing to do with religion. If you ask Jenis av Rana about me (he knows who I am) he will tell you that I am a nice young man, if somewhat deluded. That should speak volumes about my behavior and respect towards christians.
Yutani wrote:
Do you think that people should be protected against discrimination because of their religious choice?
Which of these statements are discriminating, if any?
a. "Christanity breeds homophobia"
b. "Homosexuality spreads aids"
Um, none of those statements is discriminating, I think you are using the wrong word. As for your question: No. I don't think people should be protected against discrimination because of their religious choice. A ban on religious discrimination leads to anything being legal as long as it's someone's religion. In Denmark animal abuse is legal if your religion requires this of you. The regular laws actually seceded to a religious demand. This is really not a good trend. I do believe children have a right to decide for themselves what they believe, and thus think it should be illegal to teach them religion, especially as fact, which is how it is presented in today's schools.
Are you satisfied Yutani? (still not angry with you).
OKJones wrote:
Vuz, you should really consider running a political career, you are definately politician material. You don't answer the questions, and question everything. no offense btw
None taken. I am a bit disappointed though, because I'm really trying to answer questions. Saying that everything is as it is because that's how god made it, is really no answer at all. Trying to explain it with cosmology and evolution is an answer. I presume you meant specifically Yutani's question, though, which I believe I have answered fully now.
jogvanth wrote:
Because I can't prove to you the existence of a deity, wich by your set of thinking should be extremely easy
What? No, not at all. I acknowledge that to prove any god's existence is completely impossible.
(...) aknowledge factors without going automatically blind to them.
What? I never go automatically blind to factors, that's what religious people do. What factors are you speaking of?
If, by chance, I believe that YOUR starting point is flawed, then by your own conclusion YOU are wrong in your conclusions.
What? No, if you proved that my starting point is flawed, then I would be wrong in my conclusion. Short of a proof, you could try to point at a flaw in it. Please.
Who makes you the expert on rationalization? To me, your continuing efforts to dance around the subject at hand are extremely rational, if you don't want to aknowledge the fact, that you could possible be wrong in your assumptions.
What? I never said I was. I am absolutely not dancing around anything. I am trying to be as clear as possible. It is you who are dancing around the subject that your belief is completely illogical, completely unfounded by proof, completely cherry-picked from the bible, and completely just because you happened to be born here. Had you been born in Pakistan you would be muslim, had you been born in Greece 3000 years ago you would have believed in Zeus. Dance around that! I perfectly acknowledge that I could be wrong, I have never claimed infallibility, it would be moronic of me to do so. Incidentally, your bible and your god do so. What I am claiming is that the scientific method is the way to go on matters of mystical forces, magic, the origin of life, and just about everything else. I do not claim to hold the answers, but I do know the best method to find these. Guessing is not a very good method. Reading a 1600 year old book is not a good method. Being born in the Faroe Islands is not a good method. Actually, those aren't methods at all!
I, for instance, believe your ideas of gun-control to be completely idiotic, irrational and chaotic at best.
(...) your thought about a gun in every hand (...)
What? Have you confused me with Gilli? Sometimes, for the sake of examining a subject thoroughly, it is necessary to argue for a viewpoint that one doesn't hold. This is called playing the Devil's Advocate. I may have done this in the case of gun-control, in which case I shall not take offense. For the record, I have not decided on the matter of gun-control, but I lean towards the 'no-guns' policy, as in DK. The 'guns-for-everyone' policy works exemplary in Switzerland, but not so much in the US. I don't know which is best, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
Just because Jesus was not the first in the world to preach "love and understanding" does not make him less accurate and true in his statements. Slavery in the year 0, was not at all like the modern conception of slavery, that is normaly based on the conditions of slavery in the US a couple of hundred years ago. In addition, hell was presented in the old testament, and not introduced by Jesus as punisment.
What? You're right, it doesn't make him wrong, it just doesn't make him special. And why do you think slaves had a good time 2000 years ago? Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves. I guess they had too good a time And yes, Hell as we know it was introduced by Jesus, it is described quite differently in the OT. There it is described figuratively, and there is are several verses in OT that indicate that there isn't a real afterlife. Indeed, the Judaic tradition (from which christianity stems) holds quite a different view on Hell. Jesus, however, spoke of "wailing and gnashing of teeth". This passage is actually repeated by Jesus at least four times AFAICT. How often does Jesus say "love thy neighbor"?
Vuz could be fined under that law for his previous statement
What? I'm sorry what was that?
----------------
I hope we can dispense with the Turing test argument now. I hope you can see (as Yutani also pointed out) that the criteria are hardly similar or make sense. Based on my statements above, it should be clear that I don't want you to prove god's existence, merely acknowledge that it doesn't make logical sense to believe in a god of whose existence there is no proof.
I believe we discussed gun-control for about 15 hours in Malta, or where you playing "devils advocate"?
I believe people shouldn't be discriminated for how they were born. This goes for women, blacks, quadriplegics, and homosexuals. I don't think I have ever discriminated against anyone for their religion, but it is obvious that they are not as deserving of indiscrimination as their belief is a choice.
So I am not worth being mentioned in §266b, but Rasmus, being a homosexual, is? I should be turned down for a job interview, in favor of him, because he's a homosexual, whereas I "only" have the "religion" piece of the law (wich you apparently want removed)? This is another view where our points of view clash horrendously.
I do not feel the need to "over-protect" or "over-benefit" individuals in a modern society. Everyone should be equal under the law of the country. How we can accomplish this, is another matter, which will require a lot of debate.
But, I am with you on the part of "religion in politics". At least a good part of the way. I can not see any problem in basing our social laws on christian principals, but I am against religion "dictating" how the laws are formulated. Thus, I am against, as good as every proposal made by "miðflokkurin", but I can understand their point of view. I just don't agree with many of them, because I personally think they are exagerated, beyond their purpose.
vuzman wrote:
No, but it does mean that it's a good idea to do something about it.
Yes indeed. We should educate criminals into making smarter choices and improve the quality of life for cabdrivers in new york. What we should not do is lock up all the criminals for good or ban black people from driving taxi cabs.
vuzman wrote:
Indeed, poverty, crime, violence, and irrational beliefs are all undesirable, both for the victims and the offenders, and society as a whole.
Irrational beliefs really can't be grouped with crime and violence or poverty for that matter. Irrational beliefs are only detrimental to society in their capacity of leading to important irrational decisions. I think it is fair to say that it is quite possible to have a well establsihed wellfare society where the majority of the population harbour irrational beliefs. People have stated that religion gives them quality of life. I dont know if this has been proven or not, but I don't question it. As Celdar pointed out, I think it is possible for an individual to frame their irrational beliefs in a way that does not interfere with their decision-making process.
To deem irrational beliefs undesirable as a whole - as an argument against freedom of religion, is akeen to banning black people from driving taxi cabs in new york because they are undesirable, and that is discrimination.
A ban on religious discrimination leads to anything being legal as long as it's someone's religion.
This is not true. Protecting a group of people from discrimination does not in any way or form ever give them the right to break the law.
If animal abuse is illegal, then protection against religious discrimination does not make it legal, however messed up your religion is.
Nor would it be legal to practice inter-species relations with donkeys, just because it is not legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
If people are using the indiscrimination act to get away with animal abuse, then something is wrong with the animal abuse law or the justice system, not the indiscrimination act. I have heard that some cases have been in Denmark where beastiality has been in court and the indiscrimination act brought in. I don't know if you have more info?
[Edit] I deleted a part of my argumentation. It was flawed.
This is based on the same reasoning, that you use to critizise christian beliefs. Would you kindly stop it!
The general tone in several of your forum posts, is that anyone who believes in any deity or similar, is per definition an idiot, and is not deserving of the air they breathe on this planet.
- jogvanth
If Thomsen wants Vuzman to stop ridiculing people based on their religion (fun and jokes in good spirit aside).
Then I agree.
If Thomsen wants Vuzman to stop voicing his critizism of religion.
Then I disagree.
My intention was not to offend anyone, but to inform, enlighten, and amuse.
If you count the offending posts I think you will find that out of the over 200 posts I have made on this site, only a handful have criticized christians. I don't think this is an unreasonable amount, and they shall surely get company in the future.
- Vuzman
If Vuzman defends his right of free speech and his freedom to be critical of whatever subject matter.
Then I agree.
If Vuzman wants to be able to voice prejudiced on groups of people, based on their beliefs rather than individual merit (fun and jokes in good spirit aside).
Then I disagree.
[That being said]
Personally I think that Vuzman was being funny in a good spirited way when he wrote:
Or maybe it's more like watching a Christian Lunatic meeting...
And personally I do not doubt the good-heartedness of Vuzman and I am sure he has an unbiased view of the posters on this forum, be they religious, gay, American or gnomishly sized
Lets not forget that discrimination isn't necessary a bad thing.
Society discriminates against groups of people all the time through legislation. These groups of people are labeled according with the act they have commited that society has deemed unacceptable - pedophiles, murderers, hooligans, jaywalkers, drunk drivers, arsonists etc. etc. Just because something is law doesn't make it undiscriminating. Of course, all of these things I mention are groups of people that directly harm others. There are other groups however, that aren't doing anything against others, that are being discriminated such as prostitutes, drug addicts and children etc..
Because such discrimination is largely based on Acts, it is easy to see how inherent traits such as hair, skincolor and sexual preference are a completely seperate form of discrimination. An act implies accountability whereas inherent traits do not. This is why vuz (and I) doesn't think it is correct to compare homosexuality with religious beliefs.
We have, all the same, decided that it shall be every humans right to have the freedom of religion. I do not think that this is wrong, but I would like to point out, that such arbitrary decisions about what should and should not be a basic human right, is currently an ethical question, and as such isn't necessarily determined from a purely rational perspective. Therefore, as long as what we deem to be human rights aren't completely rational, it seems futile to me to constuct any rational ruleset that would account for everything that should or should not be discriminated against.
The word discrimination comes from the Latin "discriminare", which means to "distinguish between". However, discrimination is more than distinction, it is action based on prejudice resulting in unfair treatment of people. To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit.
- Wikipedia
Society does not discriminate against groups of people all the time through legislation. Our laws ban actions not categories and our justice system is blind.
Labeling all christians idiots, when meant seriously, is in my mind prejudice and discriminating and wrong.
(This despite the fact that christians are christians because they choose to be)
Then shouldn't Vuz be fined if he said to me "Because you are a Christian, I think you are an idiot"?
Or if he said to little Muhammed Junior, "Because your family is from the Middle East, I believe you to be a future terrorist threat"?
Society does not discriminate against groups of people all the time through legislation. Our laws ban actions not categories and our justice system is blind.
Fair enough, our justice system is indeed blind, but part of your argument rests on semantics. Consider that children are not allowed to drive before they're 18, you are considered drunk when you're above 0.7 promille, shops have to be closed at night, you are not allowed to cross the road except at certain places, prostitutes are illegal, cannabis is illegal etc. etc. Our justice system might very well be blind in the execution of such laws, but their conception is just as much based on prejudice as the discrimination against homosexuals or christians. If Society decided to pass legislation which imposed the death penalty on homosexuals, then our justice system would blindly enforce such legislation without deeming anyone guilty until it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual was indeed a homosexual. Why should people not be allowed to smoke cannabis, even if many people have demonstrated that they can function perfectly with or without the use of cannabis? why can't skilled 17 year olds be allowed to drive? aren't such laws discriminating against groups based on prejudice?
@Thomsen
Shall I be fined under the law, if I walk up to a homosexual person and say " Because you are gay, I find you disgusting"?
@Yutani
I think so, yes.
Under current legislation, in denmark and eu, this is not considered discrimination, since it would violate the freedom of speech. Neither does calling someone a terrorist or pointing out christian idiocy.
Under current legislation, in denmark and eu, this is not considered discrimination, since it would violate the freedom of speech. Neither does calling someone a terrorist or pointing out christian idiocy.
This was the main argument used (besides physical violence, which is already banned) to get §266b to include sexual orientation in the FO.
They gay community, and their must staunch supporters demanded the law to be changed, so that such behaviour would become illegal.
"Den, der offentligt eller med forsæt til udbredelse i en videre kreds" (..)
do approach a single person and call him a fuckstick because he is gay, is not to publicly discriminate a group. As Thomsen says, this distinction was in some measure lost on many faroese during the heated debate from 2 months ago.
I am amazed that someone believes in a god who will burn you in hell if you question his mercy
If someone came to me and said "I believe in Charles Manson and his actions" then I would surly call him "Idiot" and something’s even worse.
It just seems that every time religion come on the table those who approve of some religion always come with some scripture about how good and pure their "god" is..... Just knowing that some of us are going to burn in hell is good enough reason for me not to be a "believer" and yes I will call people/religions that approve of my burning in hell all sorts of negative things
(When I say believes I don't mean as in exists but as in savior and lord)
And not even I am mad at Yutani
Life ain't always what it seems
So grab it by the balls, and do your best before it leaves
"Den, der offentligt eller med forsæt til udbredelse i en videre kreds" (..)
do approach a single person and call him a fuckstick because he is gay, is not to publicly discriminate a group. As Thomsen says, this distinction was in some measure lost on many faroese during the heated debate from 2 months ago.
They key word here being "offentligt". If your argumentation (qouted above) is they way the law is to be read, then the expansion of §266b, could NOT have been used in any way to help Rasmus on his, sofar, most dreadful experience. Thus the debate in FO is mute, and without just reasoning and documentation. The changing in the law, will then by no means whatsoever help the gay community in FO, unless someone actually prints "Gay-bashing-material" in the local newspapers or puts up posters or the likes.
. What I am claiming is that the scientific method is the way to go on matters of mystical forces, magic, the origin of life, and just about everything else. I do not claim to hold the answers, but I do know the best method to find these. Guessing is not a very good method. Reading a 1600 year old book is not a good method. Being born in the Faroe Islands is not a good method. Actually, those aren't methods at all!
Sometimes, for the sake of examining a subject thoroughly, it is necessary to argue for a viewpoint that one doesn't hold. This is called playing the Devil's Advocate. I may have done this in the case of gun-control, in which case I shall not take offense. For the record, I have not decided on the matter of gun-control, but I lean towards the 'no-guns' policy, as in DK. The 'guns-for-everyone' policy works exemplary in Switzerland, but not so much in the US. I don't know which is best, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
