…and this is a 
So, various factions at the United Nations have been pushing for anti-blasphemy motions — after all, we can't go around picking on weak ideas. But do you know who the UN thinks are fair game? Non-heterosexual people.
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people were once again subject to the whims of homophobia and religious and cultural extremism this week, thanks to a United Nations vote that removed "sexual orientation" from a resolution that protects people from arbitrary executions. In other words, the UN General Assembly this week voted to allow LGBT people to be executed without cause.
Jesus and Mohammed get a little cranky at the idea of someone being rude to their books of magic spells, but setting a gay man on fire? That's just an excuse to party.
The United Nations is a wonderful idea in principle, except for the little problem of giving barbarians a vote.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: vanharris
|
November 24, 2010 3:41 PM
The New Civil Rights Movement states, "UN General Assembly Votes To Allow Gays To Be Executed Without Cause".
Words cannot express my disgust at those mind-warped people responsible for this perversion of justice. Religion is a force for evil all right.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 24, 2010 3:47 PM
It's what the teach children in Saudi Arabia (and consequently, in some Islamic schools in Britain) (via Jerry Coyne's blog): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHwF6pXqubU#t=8m59s
Posted by: Brian
|
November 24, 2010 3:47 PM
And the United Nations does some horrible things in practice, except nobody pays attention to them anyway.
Posted by: oihorse
|
November 24, 2010 3:49 PM
I'm always boggled when I see the list of nations on the Security council and Human Rights council.
Makes no god damn sense.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
November 24, 2010 3:51 PM
This is just so wrong.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 24, 2010 3:52 PM
Arbitrary? Hardly, it's commanded by
Godmorons, so it's not arbitrary.Just viciously wrong.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Zeppelin
|
November 24, 2010 3:52 PM
It's a bit of a dilemma - if you don't give the horrible bastards a vote, you can't get them on board in hopes of integrating them into an international community and eventually convincing them to become a little more civilised.
But if you do give them a vote, they'll hold back the more reasonable people already on board and you get BS like this.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
November 24, 2010 3:53 PM
:shakes head: Yes, because a civilisation just can't have enough arbitrary executions.
I just feel...numb.
Posted by: reason be
|
November 24, 2010 3:55 PM
Gaaahhhh...You just can't make this stuff up.
Posted by: jesnider
|
November 24, 2010 3:57 PM
Four years ago, when the UN admitted some rather surprisingly insane countries to its Human Rights Council, Jon Stewart did hilarious bit in which he reacts to the news while attempting to drink a cup of coffee.
Posted by: Bethistopheles
|
November 24, 2010 3:58 PM
Ah, humanity. You never fail to disgust me.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
November 24, 2010 4:00 PM
"A little screwy" barely covers it.
Posted by: P_Smith
|
November 24, 2010 4:01 PM
What else is to be expected when nearly all the vetoes in the UN are by two countries, the US and Russia/USSR for political reasons, not to ensure right was done? The US has, for example, issued at least 35 vetoes to protect Israel from UN resolutions.
Some will try to liken this to Chamberlain appeasing the Nazis, but that's wrong. A far more apt comparison is to the catholic pope trying to bribe the Mongol Khans into not invading "christian" Europe. The Mongols ignored such offers and kept plundering and murdering; trying to appease muslim fascists won't be any different.
Human rights have always been a low priority, even for human rights groups. It took Amnesty International 25 years to finally admit that GBLT people deserved the same protection as straights.
.
Posted by: Zeppelin
|
November 24, 2010 4:06 PM
Also, it isn't *quite* as bad as the headline makes it sound. Gay people are still presumed included under a more vague general category (“discriminatory reasons on any basis”).
So the barbarians didn't entirely manage to get the language out of the resolution, they just forced a loophole that will let them argue that since homosexuality is criminal in their countries, it's not "discriminatory" to execute gay people - since it's not against the letter, just the spirit of the resolution - and that they're just punishing criminals.
So it's still shameful, but you can tell from the language the less horrible people were grinding their teeth over the compromise that had to be made to get a resolution out at all.
Posted by: Randy
|
November 24, 2010 4:07 PM
There aren't enough or strong enough words of animosity in any language to express the level of revulsion I feel over this act. I agree that in principle the UN is a good idea. I have defended its existence and actions on occasion to friends. But it is getting harder and harder to do so. Insanity, injustice and innanity abound in this world. It would appear that the UN is just becoming another place, like our Congress, where lunatics and their lunacy pass for sanity.
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
November 24, 2010 4:13 PM
Take a look at who voted Yes 76 No 64 Abstain 42
No surprises. Take a look at Pakistan where a christian woman is facing the death penalty for alleged blasphemy. Although the president of that country has promised to intervene, her neighbours have promised to kill her if the courts don´t. The UN have decided in there wisdom to include Pakistan on their Agency for Women along with Saudi Arabia. You couldn´t make it up.
By the way who was it telling me how enlightened and secular Turkey are now? Look which way they voted.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
November 24, 2010 4:14 PM
I can't help noticing that the majority of the countries involved are those which benefit substantially from western aid. Whilst I don't recommend withdrawing this aid, I propose that any country pursuing such barbarism should only receive items stamped with the following message:
Your country is a dirty wasteland. Your "culture" is primitive and stupid. Your "beliefs" are ridiculous superstitions. If this isn't true, then why can't you make this medicine/machinery/equipment yourself? Why do you need to beg?
Perhaps that would nudge a few of these pseudocultures towards modernity.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 24, 2010 4:15 PM
Well, being gay is a choice, but Islam is in your genes.
Makes perfect sense to me.
(And anyway, what are faggots for, if not for burning?)
Posted by: menckensghost
|
November 24, 2010 4:16 PM
The UN never fails to live down to my expectations.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 24, 2010 4:21 PM
The UN was one of those good ideas which never quite worked in practice.
Posted by: billygutter01
|
November 24, 2010 4:21 PM
Pardon my brevity, but:
Fucking nauseating!
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
November 24, 2010 4:23 PM
I guess Clint McCance resigned from the school board and joined the UN. If not, he may as well. He'd fit right in.
Posted by: Jolo5309
|
November 24, 2010 4:26 PM
What else can be expected when the UNHRC focuses almost solely on Israel?
- Since the council was created in 2006, out of 40 resolutions criticizing countries, 33 were against Israel—and seven for the rest of the world combined.
- Out of 10 emergency debates that criticized countries, seven were against Israel.
Are you telling me that the most pressing issues for the UN Human Rights Commission is Israel, or is there something else?
I will agree Israel has committed Human rights violations but 82% of the criticisms since 2006 are about them? Surely some other countries have human rights issues as well *cough* Sudan *cough*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Israel
Posted by: Shala
|
November 24, 2010 4:28 PM
I'm going to be sick. Is there anywhere in the world where people aren't homophobic fuckwits?
Posted by: CatBallou
|
November 24, 2010 4:31 PM
The United
NationsStates is a wonderful idea in principle, except for the little problem of givingbarbariansidiots a vote.Isn't this the problem with every voting system?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 24, 2010 4:32 PM
Generalised for your convenience. I like to play a version of Mad Libs wherein I fill in the blank with the smallest unit of individuals with whom I'm forced to share decision-making responsibilities to everyone's detriment and work my way outward from there until I finish with the concept of democracy.
Posted by: Kevin
|
November 24, 2010 4:53 PM
OK, stupid question time...
Why does the UN need to have a debate over arbitrary executions?
Can't everyone just agree that they're bad 100% of the time no matter the circumstance?
I wouldn't argue for an arbitrary execution of bin Laden, Shiek Omar, Pol Pot, or whichever Kim is nuttily in charge of North Korea at the moment.
No one should be arbitrarily executed. Get it?
Moving on.
Posted by: Silent Service
|
November 24, 2010 4:54 PM
I wish, but no there isn't. I'd offer empty platitudes about it getting better, but apparently we're still trying to figure out bigotry based on skin color and how this applies to a long form birth certificate. Anything to do with sex is just going to difficult to handle for most people.
Posted by: davem
|
November 24, 2010 4:59 PM
From the article:
You know, if the US actually joined the civilised world, it might be able to act with it to stop this sort of shit. In the meantime, stones and glass houses come to mind...
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
November 24, 2010 5:01 PM
Thanks for the link, Aratina Cage @#2. I learned there's yet another recommended method for killing gays: throw them off a cliff.
Hadn't heard that one before. So this is what Saudi-backed schools in the UK are teaching children?
Posted by: Seraphiel
|
November 24, 2010 5:06 PM
In a surprising instance of democratic symmetry, gay people around the world voted to allow UN ambassadors to be executed for "any reason at all, but most especially for being bigoted fuckwits."
Posted by: JiveKitty
|
November 24, 2010 5:15 PM
The UN has been slowly but surely selling out its aspirational principles of rights and inclusivity for all people for the inclusivity of states. The price is not worth it. The simple solution would have been for every member nation to have to adhere to aspiring to certain principles such as those espoused in the UN Declaration of Human Rights - and for no resolution to be able to be passed which was in contravention of this (e.g. the UN should have constitutional conventions which would prohibit such resolutions as this succeeding).
Posted by: cag
|
November 24, 2010 5:19 PM
Back in 1958 I was asked to join the UN Club at my High School. I declined as my opinion of the UN was less than flattering. My opinion hasn't changed over the years. Another excellent idea ruined by religion.
Posted by: gr8hands
|
November 24, 2010 5:21 PM
It's like screaming in a bad dream and then discovering you're actually awake.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 5:25 PM
Thankfully, the USA is able to stand above this kind human rights abuse promoted by the UN, being secure in its position as a world leader in making sure all are treated equitably.
*Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, invasion of sovereign states without due cause, treating its black citizens as subhuman within living memory, incredible levels of gluttony which pollute and destroy developing nations.*
Ah, yes. How noble we are.
"Oh, say can you see..."
Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas
|
November 24, 2010 5:26 PM
The full list of voters reveals much of the problem with the UN:
Yes, there is the "general discrimination"-clause, but a lot of countries will of course use this to argue that "general discrimination" doesn't count when people are executed for "sodomy" etc etc...
In short: Fuckers! (and not the good kind)
Posted by: normann
|
November 24, 2010 5:32 PM
As a homo in both the contemporary and the Latin senses of the word, I agree with Terrence. ""Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto " I am a human being; nothing human is strange to me.
The idea that people come in neat categories (easy to identify and hate!) is a product of our brains' bifurcated logic. Sexuality (as opposed to the plumbing of reproduction) is an amazing and surprising aspect of our species. Even those who will admit the "naturalness" of homosexuality will not admit its naturalness. For they will only admit it as some sort of pathology (be it caused by a close binding mother/distant father, pathogen or mutation). I vote for none of the above--and not just for self-serving reasons. I have seen with my own eyes enough of what the world is really like, and am personally, if not intimately, acquainted with scores of gay and bisexual dads, to know that there must be more to the story that the standard narratives).
Here's my theory (which I have no personal, reputational stake in. It can be tested and, if found wanting, will be falsified): as cooperative, non-harem-building primates, whose not so distant ancestors depended on successful collaborative hunting, males needed close emotional bonds (i.e. we are not like chimpanzees, gorillas or dogs). Perhaps rather than some kind of disorder, homosexuality, homoeroticism etc. are simply too much of a good thing (which from the point of view of survival of the species might not be a good thing if everybody does it), the good thing being emotionally bonded cooperation among males. As a witness, I call Jesse Ventura, the former governor of Minnesota and former Navy Seal. He knew this, which is why, for all his political incorrectness, he is not a homophobe. For to be a Navy Seal you have to get off on intimate physical contact with another guy on some level. Needless to say, Tom Wolfe's "Ambush at Fort Bragg" redneck gay-basher would never have made it as a Navy Seal.
Unnatural? Why the taboo, then? Why in the world would we ever need a taboo against something nobody would ever want to do in a million years?
Posted by: iamnothouse.com
|
November 24, 2010 5:40 PM
I don't think this is a problem with 'democracy' per se. If you look at the breakdown of how countries voted above, you'll see that a lot of the larger, more populous countries voted against the amendment, while more of the smaller ones seemed to be voting in favor. I agree that having the power in the hands of a few larger nations is recipe for disaster (and I'm no big fan of proportional representation; just look at the clusterf*ck that is the Israeli Kinesset), but surely there has to be some middle ground to reach?
And if anyone has read a book by Pedor Sanjuan called 'The UN Gang', it'll go into great detail (admittedly with a large pro-America/Israel spin) about how messed up the UN has been, especially with respect to the USSR, the Arab Lobby and China (recently)
Posted by: Some bloke or another
|
November 24, 2010 5:42 PM
That really is the worst bit about being gay - half the world hates you and wants you dead.
The best bit is sucking cock >:D
Not sure what the most worrying thing about this is. Is it how clearly the vote demonstrates that unstable, corrupt and dictatorial governments outnumber stable, modern democracies? Or is it perhaps how clearly this demonstrates that, apparently, the only thing stopping a country from wanting to arbitrarily execute LGBT people is the awkward matter of reams and reams of constitutional obstacles and those darned human rights contained within.
Posted by: John Williamson
|
November 24, 2010 5:44 PM
"resolution that protects people from arbitrary executions" Resolutions don't protect anybody from anything.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 24, 2010 5:46 PM
#16:
Pakistan is oddball. Benighted in many ways, of course, but it has a quota system to ensure women take seats in both houses of parliament, and of course it was the first Muslim country to be led by a woman (some western countries still haven't achieved that). I wouldn't want to be a woman in any Muslim country, but Pakistan certainly isn't the worst in that regard.
Posted by: Some bloke or another
|
November 24, 2010 5:49 PM
@38
Small? Pakistan? Bangladesh? Iran? Nigeria? Indonesia? PRC? Compared to Monaco, Liectenstein, Andorra and Luxembourg on the side of not-evil?
Yes, I'm cherry-picking, but it looks like the split on population is a lot closer to 50/50 than you might think
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 5:51 PM
Thank you, Moggie @#41 for educating these kneejerk Westerners on their errors.
Honestly, when a post like this comes up, it really does feel like the FoxNews comments page on here: lots of people spouting their bullshit opinions on how things operate in countries they have never and will never visit.
"Gays? Killed? By the UN? Humph, must be those Ayrabs, Pakis and voodoo Africans, eh?"
FFS.
Posted by: darksmiles
|
November 24, 2010 5:53 PM
The OIC has twice as many countries as the EU but the same number of people. This is a failure of the UN's "one country, one vote" model, not of proportional democracy.
Posted by: darksmiles
|
November 24, 2010 6:02 PM
In fact, we in the EU and US have 800 million people in 28 countries. The OIC has 500 million people in 57 countries. Islamic countries have twice the power of Europe and America in the UN despite barely having half our population. What the UN needs desperately is truly democratic reform.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 6:03 PM
What exactly is a UN Resolution?
Is it like a New Years Resolution where you plan not to eat as much and get more excercise?
What a crock.
Posted by: fyngyrz
|
November 24, 2010 6:05 PM
What I want to know is, why would you expect any different from these countries (or for that matter, most US citizens)?
Theism adversely affects people's mental functioning; it tribalizes them to the extent that anyone who does not conform to their mythology is an enemy, to be taken care of by some combination of diet[y|ies], condescending discrimination, and elimination.
Confoundedly, As long as it is politically correct to "tolerate" religion, you're also going to be tolerating what religion does to the mind. There's no way out of this. I know it's a bitter pill for left-wing types to swallow, but this can't be solved by "being nice" to theists.
In the US, we've unfortunately awarded the "freedom" to inculcate children with religion to parents; crippling the children's critical thinking abilities right out of the gate, inserting a lever between them and reality (and not even just bad parts of reality), and laying groundwork that will adversely affect their perception of just about everything around them.
To the extent that we continue to fail to address this as a culture, we will continue to be infected by people who neither value humanity for humanity's sake, or are able to limit the actions they take to themselves and consensual parties.
It's a conundrum: In order to obtain liberty and true consensuality, we must not allow mental failure of religion's nature to exist.
Posted by: SEF
|
November 24, 2010 6:12 PM
... listed without even remembering the asexuals and intersexuals.Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 6:25 PM
SEF: please be joking.
Labels, labels, labels. FFS, if we're going to crusade for the rights of those with no sex drive and those who look a little bit inappropriately manly/effeminate, where will we end up?
How about the red-haired community, the fat community, the polydatcyl community, the bifurcated tongue community, the anal fistula community.
Grow up, stop devoting so much leftwing self-hating worrytime to insignificant "causes", and get out there to make a big difference in the world.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 6:33 PM
Good news everybody! SlantedScience is here to belittle people who have legitimate problems. Fucker, look up intersexuals and learn how these people are arbitrarily assigned a gender according to how long their ambiguous genitalia are.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 6:36 PM
Let me guess - SlantedScience is straight male middle class and white.
Lets all get out and make a big difference in the world! Hurrah!
What an inspiring speech!
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 6:41 PM
So, who is more pleased with this; Islamic theocracies or The Family?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 24, 2010 6:44 PM
Hey! Don't tread on those of us with deviated septa.
Posted by: tytalus
|
November 24, 2010 6:46 PM
Ugh. Wishing SlantedScience and the U.N. a happy thanksgiving, I think I'll just leave it at that.
/sarcasm
Posted by: Kamaka
|
November 24, 2010 6:49 PM
Is there a difference?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 6:53 PM
When will SS finally say something cogent? Maybe if he goes back to lurking for a year or so, and stops trying to be a troll.
Disagreeing with the horde isn't necessarily trolling, if you can back up your inane and insane ideas with good evidence. Opinion only is just trolling. And guess where SS usually is. Evidence nowhere in sight...
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 6:55 PM
Kamaka, just the book they find to be inerrant.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 7:09 PM
No trolling here, just pointing out the narrow mindedness and self-obsessed hand wringing of so many Pharyngulae.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 7:12 PM
By being inclusive, one becomes narrow minded.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
November 24, 2010 7:17 PM
Slanted you're wasting your time.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 7:17 PM
It is mine to waste. Dog bless America.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 7:19 PM
Yawn, SS is still the evidenceless loser. Try again in a month. Maybe it will have matured and gotten a better perspective in that time frame...(HAR, once a loser, always a loser).
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 7:22 PM
Nerd of Redhead, you follow me around like a stanky dog. Why would a rational person do that?
I am very happy with my wife, so please leave me alone.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 7:27 PM
SlantedScience cannot tell the difference between a stalker in meat space and a commentator on the internet. Says a lot.
Posted by: MelM
|
November 24, 2010 7:28 PM
@7
It doesn't look like the U.N. is making the barbarians more civilized; it looks like they are trying to make us less civilized.
It's taken years of watching religion, and especially Islam, for me to be pushed into rejecting the idea that all people, somehow, want the same thing. What we want depends on our philosophy and philosophies differ radically--really radically.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 7:30 PM
SlantedScience,
People caring about others is self-obsessed? You rate asexual and inter-sexual issues as insignificant?
You are an arsehole.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 7:31 PM
Fixed it for you loser. We, and I mean the Collective, doesn't give a shit what you think, since you have been trolling for so, so very long. Why you think we do is something beyond the ken of most of us, as we are rational beings, unlike yourself. Try a new approach. Silence is Golden I hear...Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnARs0CNQnEm1XRt0x6wznYdrTmb5e54kk
|
November 24, 2010 7:35 PM
I've got a fantastic argument for including intersex and asexual people:
Don't you always wish you could buy a vowel when you see GLBT? Also, there's one T too few, there.
I propose GLABTIT. You can say this, and it sounds like an innocent little birdie.
If you don't like that, the letters are not in any mandatory order, so hey, have fun with it.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 7:36 PM
Misquoting. Nice tactic. Try writing for AIG, why dontcha?
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 7:41 PM
@#66 who said"People caring about others is self-obsessed? You rate asexual and inter-sexual issues as insignificant?
You are an arsehole."
I rate the numbers of asexual and intersexual people in the world as insignificant, given that we are (were, anyway) discussing the execution of gay people. I believe that introducing these people into the discussion is both pointless and damaging to the worldwide LG cause.
Feel free to introduce me to the stats on killings of asexuals and intersexuals (honestly, please do. I might change my mind).
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 7:47 PM
Because there is not "enough" intersexual people, their rights are insignificant.
And we are the narrow minded one.
Koshka is right.
Asshole.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 7:50 PM
Nerd of Redhead @67 said: "Silence is Golden".
Why do you hate your own sex so much that you would use a phrase originally designed to keep women in their place?
16th C saying: "Silence is a woman's best garment."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/silence-is-golden.html
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 7:53 PM
SS, why can't you shut the fuck up, as nobody is interested in your idiocy? Nothing you say is of interest. LOSER....
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 7:53 PM
Swing and a miss!
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 7:55 PM
#71: Wrong. Their rights are not insignificant; they are, however, no more than any other human's.
No group of governments can legislate for the infinite physical/mental groups which one can construct within humanity. Read my red-haired/fat people post to see how easy it is to come up with ridiculous groups which Westerners can get all upset about respecting.
I'm saying focus on the big, already-under-threat groups before expending energy on some 1/100,000 classification.
Gays, the mentally ill, women, Asians working in the UAE...
And never, ever, believe that your own country is much better than "the furrners".
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 7:57 PM
@Nerd of Redhead, #73, who said: "Nothing you say is of interest".
Every fucking thing I say is of interest to you, it seems. Please leave me alone.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 7:59 PM
We don't give a shit. What part of my statement don't you understand loser? We don't give a shit what you think. Period, end of story. You are wasting your time, not ours (I need to keep my coat sniny and fangs cleaned). Try back after the new year, with a new attitude. Maybe, just maybe, we might listen to the new you...Posted by: John Morales
|
November 24, 2010 8:00 PM
Let us remember the purpose of the UN:
I think it's better than nothing, though (by far) it's not as good as it could be. As it should be.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 8:05 PM
And because SillyScience would rather dismiss people instead of actually using a search engine, here are some numbers for these "insignificant" people.
Asshole.
Posted by: Kirk
|
November 24, 2010 8:08 PM
I realize this will probably get lost in the current "discussion" between SlantedScience and others, but ...
Although I agree with the intent behind PZ's posting of this issue, I just wanted to comment that when it comes to people being executed without cause, we ought to protect people unconditionally.
You don't need a list of people who should be protected from being executed without cause. Nobody should be executed without cause.
Even in Texas.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 8:14 PM
And never, ever, believe that your own country is much better than "the furrners".
I do not. But it also says a lot about you that you think that I do.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 8:19 PM
#80: kind of my point, though as you have seen, my words tend to induce a sort of beehive/intruder mentality in here.
To put it simply: we're fighting to make the UN act against killing gay people. Ideally, all people would be protected, but there is a great big concrete roadblock there (*cough* USA *cough*).
To fragment humanity into such tiny groups as asexuals and intersexuals is to invite ridicule from the worldwide community. They are simply not well enough defined, nor populous enough, to warrant a specific inclusion in UN votes. As I've said: what about Filipino women working as housemaids in the civilized countries of the world, what about the mentally ill who fare extremely badly within the judicial systems of every country in the world (*cough* USA *cough*).
Go after the big targets, where the rewards are proportionate.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 24, 2010 8:20 PM
Kirk,
I think you miss the point; to some, being actively gay or being blasphemous is a reasonable cause.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
November 24, 2010 8:21 PM
There's plenty of people who think certain sexual behaviors are just cause for execution.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 8:22 PM
Kirk, I am in full agree with you. But just think of all of the "law and order" people in the US who would complain even more about the UN if the UN came out against executions. Or other heavy hitters in the UN like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 8:23 PM
@#81: Should I give a shit about the opinion of someone calling themselves "The She Wolf Of Pharyngula"?
A person who loves an atheist, anti-babble website yet names themselves after a creature of legend?
You're a very confused girl.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 8:24 PM
Kirk #80,
I do agree with you. But ideally we should not even have to have a 'resolution' to say we wont go round killing people for no reason.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 8:27 PM
Koshka, #87: what would be a reason for executing someone?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 8:27 PM
Where I live, there is a moratorium on executions imposed by three different Governors. It turns out, that the evidence in capital cases can be mighty skimpy, and not hold up to skeptical scrutiny to the point where several death row inmates were released after appeals. Hence the moratorium. Better none executed than even one innocent person.Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 8:30 PM
SlantedScience #88,
OT but I personally don't have any reason for executing someone.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
November 24, 2010 8:30 PM
In an equitable world?*sigh*
Fuckin' human rights: how do they work?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 8:31 PM
Right, SillyScience. Just because one includes people who are a relatively smaller number does not mean that one is not interested in the abuses of Filipina housekeepers and the mentally ill.
Just who is the one being narrow minded.
Asshole.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 24, 2010 8:34 PM
[meta]
SS:
Because it's an epitome of the genetic fallacy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 8:38 PM
SS, you still haven't given us a reason to give a shit about your opinions. That starts with your opinions being cogent, and backed up by evidence. You lose on both counts. Silence, the refuge for the terminal losers like you.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 8:46 PM
A person who loves an atheist, anti-babble website yet names themselves after a creature of legend?
You're a very confused girl.
First, call me a "girl" again and I will castrate you.
Second, that moniker is a joke. And it does not come from legion. It is a play on a movie title. Even if I were to name myself "Maid Marian", it would not mean that I believe in Robin Hood.
The problem is not that I am a confused women. The problem is that you are a short sighted and rather stupid man.
Asshole.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 8:50 PM
QFT.Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 8:51 PM
I imagine if SlantedScience lived 50 years ago his line would be "Women's rights are insignificant".
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
November 24, 2010 9:04 PM
Well, I have to say I'm equally appalled at the lot of you as is SlantedWhatisSchmuck...
I mean, here you disgusting hypocrites are expressing outrage over a human rights issue when there are other human rights issues I, personally, actually care about...
Or, okay, actually, technically they're more issues I'm going to pretend to care about, at least for the length of this thread, purely for rhetorical purposes, in a convoluted attempt to claim moral high ground...
Whatevs/the principle's the same... The important thing is: regardless of any activism/stated, recorded objection/political engagement on those issues you may or may not have in your histories, the fact that you care about something I simply do not and the fact that you're not discussing those other issues right now means you're self-obsessed, see?
(/Also, anyone noticing this line of argument makes roughly as much sense as did, say, Kent Hovind's dissertation is just a mindless thrall following the tribal imperative 'n objecting to my brave 'n principled--and not at all hilariously incoherent--iconoclasm. You hypocritical moral failures, you.)
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 9:05 PM
#95: hey, sweet girl. Isn't there a report that needs typing up? Go on, you adorable little thing: get back to your desk before I report you to the boss guy.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 9:07 PM
#98: I think you were aiming for "humor".
So sad that you ended up in "unintelligible".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 9:08 PM
Yawn, SS the abject loser just can't shut the fuck up, proving my point that he has nothing cogent to say...
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 9:10 PM
@Nerd of Redhead: I AM MARRIED. PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE, YOU CRAZY LADY.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
November 24, 2010 9:11 PM
Wow, Slanted, way to tangent away from the OP. Points, NOT!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 24, 2010 9:13 PM
SlantedScience: You're awfully close to getting banned for slagging and stupidity.
Stop now. Go take a nap or something. This is a warning.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
November 24, 2010 9:14 PM
Hahaha! Being anonymous does have it's perks!
You get to be a complete flaming asshole without the usual repercussions of face-to-face interaction.
Grow up, boy, just 'cause you can doesn't mean you should.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 9:16 PM
@#103: you should recheck my posts: I began and continued to address the question at hand until derailed by my rather fanatical followers. I have a huge interest in stopping the executions of tehgays, and am arguing that trying to include tiny minority groups (nanorities?) in with tehgays will be dangerous for tehgays.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
November 24, 2010 9:20 PM
Believe it or not I'm actually in favor of the banning idea this time. Mostly for the tiresomeness of the brick wall SlantedScience seems to be.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
November 24, 2010 9:21 PM
@#104: OK.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 9:28 PM
Slanted Science #106,
Your initial point was that concern about asexuals and intersexuals is an insignificant cause. If what you meant was that we should concentrate on Gay rights first then maybe should have said that instead of
And then you accuse people of handwringing.
Pot - Kettle - Black
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 9:35 PM
SillyScience, do you dismiss the words of someone who is black by telling nigger jokes?
And, as Koshka pointed out, you were never on topic.
Asshole.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
November 24, 2010 9:43 PM
Apparently it's not only impossible for SlantedScience to care about intersexed and assexual people while caring for homosexuals, it's also impossible for him to care about women.
Actually, now that I think about it, he seems to have a certain amount of passion directed towards women. It's just that it's hatred.
Posted by: darksmiles
|
November 24, 2010 9:47 PM
I wonder if anyone agrees with me that the way to solve this business of the UN being taken over by religious nuts is to make it more democratic given how Muslims are way over-represented by the current system.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 9:47 PM
I have a huge interest in stopping the executions of tehgays, and am arguing that trying to include tiny minority groups (nanorities?) in with tehgays will be dangerous for tehgays.
This is the same argue that some gays and lesbians have used in order to exclude transsexuals and transvestites from civil rights bills. Also by "straight acting" gays against the flamboyant gays and drag queens.
Sorry but I buy into the old Wobbly idea; An injury to one is an injury to all.
Asshole.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 9:50 PM
There should be a "-ment" attached to one of my words. I will leave it to the dear reader to figure out which one.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 9:53 PM
darksmiles,
UN ambassadors are government appointed aren't they? Can the UN ever be considered democratic?
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 9:55 PM
#115 above. I presume that the UN ambassadors only vote on behalf of their government so I guess this does make it somewhat democratic (assuming that country is democratic).
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
November 24, 2010 9:58 PM
I'm not allowed to have the time to read all your comments apparently, though the first few seemed cool (as cool as righteous rage can be, given that it is necessarily in reaction to something unspeakably horrible).
My gut reaction to this is the same as my gut reaction to 9-11. Mind you, this is not how I feel on a rational level and not something I'd actually advocate. I work with muslims every day who are cool people. But when I see some shit like this, the first knee-jerk gut reaction I have is this:
Nuke Mecca. Fuck Islam straight to hell. While we're at it, nuke Israel and the Vatican and Salt Lake City. All religions must be fucking killed, before they can kill everything that is good in the human species.
I don't like it when people make me feel that mad. Knock it off, fuckers. I'm trying to be the most tolerant and peaceful human I can be over here. My favorite coworkers are muslims. Fuckfaced bloodthirsty theocracies are trying to dehumanize them at me and I don't appreciate it.
Not that any of them are reading this, but sorry for flipping out my brothers. Peace.
Posted by: darksmiles
|
November 24, 2010 10:02 PM
Each country gets one vote in the UN though, as opposed to proportional representation. A reform of the voting system could make things much more democratic.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 10:03 PM
gas,
That was just scary. I hope you never trust your gut instinct.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 24, 2010 10:08 PM
The UN was created to promote world peace and understanding after the League of Nations went so spectacularly belly-up just prior to World War II. I fail to see how giving a UN stamp of approval to the state-sanctioned murder of LGBT people advances this mandate, and I fear that the UN is increasingly becoming some kind of accomodationalist central, with endless attempts to promote resolutions against 'insulting' religious delusions and those who hold them while acting as a waystation for the apologists for violent homophobia.
The UN may have been founded on noble ideals, but its modern manifestation is rapidly descending into a cess-pit of corruption and politicking; little more than a soapbox from which fundies of various stripes can tout their persecution complexes.
Afterall, if you cannot burn a few gays in peace, then you must be really oppressed...
Words fail me. I cannot adequately express how sickened and outraged I am by the UN's flagrant endorsement of homophobic violence in the name of religious 'tolerance'.
I don't care what ludicrous mythology a given cult, society, government or individual may adhere to - murdering someone because their sexual orientation differs from your own* is never anything other than a crime against humanity. Any functional person should be capable of recognizing this.
The real problem here is not just the bigots, but the facilitators who surround them. There are, I would say, broadly three types of problematic attitudes that surround this kind of behaviour:-
1) The bigots who occasion the hatred and violence, and are most directly and obviously responsible.
2) The fatalists who say that this is just 'the way of the world', and so there is no point trying to stop it. How often have we all heard people say something like;
"I don't agree with the abuse/discrimination/violence/oppression, but there is nothing I/we can do about. Its always been this way/making a big deal out of this will only make things worse for the *insert victimized group here*"?
3) Those who are apathetic, and simply don't care enough about the issues to engage with them at all, or are so ignorant of the issues that they simply parrot whatever attitudes they have been exposed to in the mainstream media or within their communities/families uncritically. There are always those who say;
"Why should I care? I am not LGBT/black/a woman/an atheist. Why should I get involved? I have my own problems thank you very much... (Que ludicrously imnappropriate comparison between some trivial personal obstacle and a centuries-long history of systematic discrimination and mistreatment).
The UN contains some from category (1), and a whole lot from categories (2) and (3).
* Or, perhaps, aligns all too uncomfortably closely with your own unacknowledged desires. Instead of accepting who they are, some people find it easier to project that which they cannot accept in themselves onto others, and then seek to destroy those people in the hope that somehow they can simultaneously destroy that part of themselves that they revile. The idea that some people not only accept their homosexuality, but can live completely full lives while being openly gay, is sadly incomprehensible to such damaged individuals.
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
November 24, 2010 10:09 PM
kosh- Like I said, that's not my actual position. I oppose nukes and most forms of real-life violence pretty strenuously, and on a rational level I know I have to tolerate religion and promote tolerance of it.
But goddamn I hate that shit. Good thing my gut doesn't have it's finger on the button, eh?
Posted by: Nick
|
November 24, 2010 10:12 PM
Unfortunately, the vote would seem to suggest that this doesn't simply cut as case of the extent to which religion is influential in a country affecting the vote. There are probably few countries in the world with a population as devoutly Christian as Samoa, and they voted against the measure.
Of course, the real issue is why the UN even has to have a convention on defining who it is ok for a state to murder, and who it is not.
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
November 24, 2010 10:12 PM
Embarrassing apostrophe in "it's." Time to nuke me. Good night, y'all.
Posted by: Kirk
|
November 24, 2010 10:24 PM
@ John Morales #83
No, I got the point. I agree that being gay or bisexual or transgender or queer is not a reason for a person to be executed "without cause", or a "cause" to justify their execution. My point is that there is no "cause" which justifies executing people "without cause". It's not a "reasonable cause". There is no "reasonable cause" to execute people "without cause".
@ Koshka #87. Yes, I agree.
@ everybody, I am not arguing against protecting people for their sexual orientation. People who are different for various reasons, and especially sexual orientation reasons, are persecuted, and that is wrong. I was only trying to point out that executing people without cause is a bad thing in general.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 10:28 PM
Kirk, I got it. That is why I pointed those countries that routinely have executions. I doubt that these would, at any time in the near future, be voting for a resolution that banned all executions.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 24, 2010 10:37 PM
P_Smith wrote
Well, you see, AI didn't want to offend any of their sponsors by being too aggressive (strident, militant, uppity). That's where playing nice gets us.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 10:50 PM
I think everyone should chip in a milli-e-ducat in order to get some new glasses for SS. If he thinks someone who describes himself as looking like Ed Asner is female, there is either a real need for glasses on his part, or there are several screws loose with his mind, together with a total lack of a sense of humor. My money's on the latter.
Posted by: grizzlybaker
|
November 24, 2010 10:57 PM
I find myself tentatively agreeing with SlantedScience.
How many of us realistically think that we can remove *all* arbitrary, discriminatory, and unjust laws in our own lifetimes? Perhaps setting smaller goals is the way to go.
I'm not saying that asexual or intersexual people are insignificant. I'm saying, purely from a utilitarian perspective, it we can save 10 million, for example, is this better than trying to save 15 million and failing?
Posted by: Circe
|
November 24, 2010 10:57 PM
One of those days it is proud to be Indian, though there is still a long way our laws on the subject have to go(No, they do cot call for executions, but do club homosexuality with sexual offecnes. The particular parts of the Indian Penal Code, I think, have been the same as they were written down in the British era. To its credit, the Supreme Court last year criticized the laws, and (if I remember correctly) asked for them to be changed).
The big surprise for me is China: I cannot imagine why would they be in support of removing the term. For all it's worth, China isn't that religious.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 10:59 PM
darksmiles #118,
Isn't one of the issues of the UN is that large countries are not able to overshadow small countries.
China and India combined have half the population in the world so with proportional representation, together they could own the UN.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
November 24, 2010 11:01 PM
Nerd:
I have no idea of the context here; but it was a too interesting sentence to pass up. I can't say I know any woman who would self-describe that way.
As for TongueBoy's* comments, I haven't seen them for ages, having tucked him away in my own little dungeon.
*If you don't get that reference, you haven't been to SS' blog. That said, it's not worth the click. He doesn't get any attention there, which is probably why he trolls.
Posted by: Circe
|
November 24, 2010 11:02 PM
Correction to my comment #129:
"...it is proud..." in the first paragraph should be "...it feels proud..." or "...I feel proud...".
And I hope the Powers That Be will pardon me my little nationalistic outburst :-)
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 24, 2010 11:02 PM
Circe,
It may help but you don't need to be religious to be homophobic.
And looking to China for human rights leadership is looking the wrong way.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
November 24, 2010 11:04 PM
It's just easier to disagree with you, Nerd, if you're one of those hideous women.
It's unimaginable that a man would not see SS's brilliant logic for what it is.
It's only those weak-minded girls who just can't get it. The poor dears.
Posted by: Circe
|
November 24, 2010 11:12 PM
Koshaka,
You are probably right, but at least in India, most of the opposition to changing the law on the subject comes from religious groups, and not from Communists(Yes, we have a real Communist Party of India, in fact many of them. They actually contest, and sometimes win, elections!).
Another interesting twist to this debate in India is that most of the religious groups involved(mostly Islamic and Christian) can appeal to the privileges the Indian Constitution grants them for being minority religious groups, and ask for the status quo to be maintained. Now, of course, those privileges do not come without reservations, but this does give the religious opposers a political platform for free.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
November 24, 2010 11:14 PM
If that's how it works, maybe. But do you have any evidence to indicate that it's going to work that way?It seems to me that the more you point out to bigots just how big and diverse the world is, the smaller their big, fat role in it becomes. Allowing them to retain the notion of majority doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It seems to me that if you only attempt to pry a small piece of the pie from their tightly clenched fists--all while telling them what brave little soldiers they are--you're keeping the power firmly rooted in their charge.
Isn't it time to let them know that they aren't the fucking majority? That the world is a lot bigger than their tiny minds? That you don't get to be a fucking hero for not killing gay people but still hating asexuals?
Or should we keep stroking their misplaced egos and jumping for joy every time a crumb spills from their fat mouths close enough for us to grab it without getting kicked in the face?
We aren't the ones hurting the cause. They are.
Posted by: Horace
|
November 24, 2010 11:17 PM
>Each country gets one vote in the UN though, as >opposed to proportional representation. A reform >of the voting system could make things much more >democratic.
I wouldn't assume that making the UN more democratic would make it more tolerant of gays and blasphemers. Anti gay and/or anti antheistic feeling is quite normal in much of the world.
Nerd of Redhead is a woman ???. I pictured a skinny hyperactive teenage male. Sort of Bevis and Butthead but good at math.
Posted by: Misfire
|
November 24, 2010 11:17 PM
Many people eventually boycotted South Africa for their policy of apartheid; what do you do when 79 nations have publicly declared the legal right to kill gays without being investigated?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 24, 2010 11:18 PM
Gregory,
I refer you to my quote from the UN charter above.
First, they're not sanctioning it so much as not endorsing its contrary.
Second, and more relevant, the UN is meant to work at the level of nation-states, not at the level of individuals.
(As I see it, too many of its resolutions exceed its chartered purview. This is one of them.)
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 24, 2010 11:22 PM
How many of us realistically think that we can remove *all* arbitrary, discriminatory, and unjust laws in our own lifetimes? Perhaps setting smaller goals is the way to go.
Why? What is the point of working towards equality if a blind eye is turned towards some forms of discrimination? Also, when that blind eye is cast. problems will arise. Look at the strife between straight women and lesbians in the women's rights movement in the seventies and eighties in the US. Many of the mainstream straght organizations were willing to step over the lesbians in order to get these rights. And the same with mainstream gays and lesbian (Like the HRC.)being willing to screw over transgendered people in getting anti-discrimination rights.
What you and SillyScience are proposing leads to destructive infighting when all of that effort should go towards taking your freedoms.
Also, how do you justify to an oppressed people that they should just take it while an other one gains their freedom? How do you make the choice of which people should just be dumped upon?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
November 24, 2010 11:23 PM
grizzlybaker:
Well, SS certainly did an excellent job distracting you. SEF's point @ #48 was that once again asexual and intersex people are being excluded. It was a long hard fight to get to GLBT in the first place, it's been a longer fight to get to GLBTI; I will be a longer fight to get to GLBTIA. People have started using GLBTI lately, and you always get the question, "what does the 'I' stand for?", which is fine, it shows, however, how much farther we need to go.
The decision on the UN's part demonstrates that it's not just a matter of being reviled everyday by a multitude of peoples, it's a matter of not even being considered human; we aren't deserving of the same basic rights as others.
In a world where a great many people think that GLBT people are sick and evil, that we should either be "corrected" or locked up, when we still have to fight for the most basic rights (such as having the right to visit in a hospital instead of being barred for not legally being 'family', being able to hold the same jobs as others, i.e., teacher), it's all the more difficult for not being included in community solidarity.
For many GLBTIA peoples, our community is literally all they have. We not only face widespread discrimination (even unthinking discrimination on the part of those who consider themselves friends and allies), but life can be made damn near intolerable when there is no inclusion into the community. It was that way for a long time for bisexuals, and I can tell you from personal experience, that was no picnic. (That's an understatement for you, too.)
It might not matter to you, however, it can mean a life or death difference to some people; it can mean the difference between existence/subsistence and quality of life to others.
Yes, saving lives is paramount. What's not being understood is that not even having a place in a community can cost lives. It is important to save lives, and that can come about in many ways, including the ways which seem small a/o unimportant on the surface to others.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
November 24, 2010 11:25 PM
Horace:
My, you've managed to be wrong on all counts. Well, okay, not on the "good at math" one. You've made the same mistake many people have, not thinking about Nerd's nym. Nerd of Redhead.
Posted by: darksmiles
|
November 24, 2010 11:26 PM
Koshka #130,
As opposed to the large countries being dominated by the small countries as the "one country, one vote" system favors? I'm not for undue preference either way, but for a balance based on "one person, one vote."
China and India have a combined 37% of world population, so a goodly chunk. But their citizens deserve 37% of the power in the UN, instead of barely 1%. Human rights > arbitrary borders.
Posted by: darksmiles
|
November 24, 2010 11:41 PM
Horace #137,
True, democratic reforms would most likely replace Islamic bigots with Chinese and Indian bigots. But 1) they may be more willing to see reason on civil rights in the long run, and 2) important though they are, GLBT rights are not the only point of democracy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 11:44 PM
Let's see what the facts are. The Redhead is my wife of 35+ years. That also makes me a old fart, and I'll be retiring in less than 10 years. I started losing my hair shortly after I married the Redhead. (Not cause and effect, as I blame my great-granddad, granddad, and dad for the bald genes.) I take care of all the electronics in the house, hence the nerd. I am good in math, almost acing the math SAT and math achievement tests 40 years ago.Time for bed. Night all.
Posted by: paulmurray
|
November 24, 2010 11:47 PM
"Take a look at who voted Yes 76 No 64 Abstain 42"
Can anyone do a map?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 25, 2010 12:09 AM
darksmiles, as I've indicated, the members of the UN are nation-states, not people.
One state, one vote is fair.
--
paulmurray, here's a map.
All you need to do is to use Thebear's list on it.
MS Paint (comes with Windows) has a colour-fill feature, as do many freeware apps.
So yes, you can do a map.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 25, 2010 12:13 AM
darksmiles,
China as a permanent member of the UN Security Council has significant power in the UN. I think there are 5 permanent members and 4 elected? A small country by itself has pretty much no power in the UN. Bring in proportional representation and they may as well not be there.
When big countries feel dominated by small countries they can do the usual and blockade,withdraw aid, invade.
As John Morales pointed out, the UN is setup to work at the level of nation-states. It is not a world government. It is about how independent nations can work together.
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 25, 2010 12:18 AM
John Morales #147,
If I give you a lolly will you do my homework for me?
Posted by: Circe
|
November 25, 2010 12:45 AM
.....But giving five of those "ones" values much greater than one is not.
The UN, in its very design, is undemocratic. Unfortunately, it is the best we have right now.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 25, 2010 12:50 AM
Circe, the permanent members relate to the Security Council, not to the UN as a whole.
But yes, the UNSC is tainted by realpolitik.
Posted by: Circe
|
November 25, 2010 1:29 AM
John Morales:
From Wikipedia:
and
The Security Council has, in general, an overruling power over most UN decisions. So, effectively the "realpoitik" permeates the whole of the UN..
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 25, 2010 2:47 AM
What are the practical consequences of this UN resolution? For example, look at the list of signatories of the UN convention against torture. Notice how some of those countries are known to use torture?
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
November 25, 2010 3:06 AM
Exactly.Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
November 25, 2010 3:12 AM
Actually, it's like letting creationists vote on whether there should be good science education in schools or not.
Posted by: grizzlybaker
|
November 25, 2010 4:00 AM
Caine,
But clearly much of the world is not accepting of the (relatively) common gays and lesbians. Most people, most Americans even, are still stuck in the binary sexuality mindset (look at the fool SlantedScience and his casual dismissal). Getting them to admit that there are more than heterosexuals in existence that are healthy, functioning members of society seems like a realistic, short-term goal to getting general acceptance of all sexuality.
Posted by: mikee
|
November 25, 2010 4:25 AM
Who says that including others who are discriminated against will cause us to fail? Is there not strength in numbers?
One of the biggest problems in the world in my opinion is a lack of empathy. I don't see how any gay man, lesbian, woman, non-caucasian or anyone else who has experienced prejudice for any reason can not empathise with asexuals and intersexuals.
If we don't attempt to protect others from discrimination, why should we expect others to protect us?
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 25, 2010 4:34 AM
Let's not be coy, now:
= the OIC have been pushing for anti-blasphemy motions at the United Nations= Muslims get irate if anyone disrespects the Qur'an
= The United Nations would be a wonderful idea in principle, if it weren't for Islamic barbarians
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 25, 2010 5:03 AM
Wow, ABQ. I hadn't realised such as the Bahamas, the Russian Federation or Viet Nam were Islamic barbarians. And clearly, the 43 nations that did not vote bear no responsibility at all.
(Must suck to be an islamophobe such as you, and seeing fearful phantoms everywhere you look.)
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 25, 2010 5:05 AM
PS ABQ, I take it you're against anti-blasphemy laws, right? Else you'd be an Islamic barbarian...
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 25, 2010 5:08 AM
#117
Fair enough, Islamic nations voted for this.ah no, Israelis/Italians/USA/democratic &/or Christian nations did not vote for this. Obtain the semblance of a brain, you genocidal psychopathic lefty atheist.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 25, 2010 5:14 AM
@JM
ya darn-tootin' I'm against anti-blasphemy laws
Posted by: agonistes
|
November 25, 2010 5:20 AM
Slanted is right in some respects, it probably does hurt the "cause" to demand rights for increasingly smaller groups, because at some point, it strikes many "normal" people as ridiculous.
There are four types of bathrooms at the nearby university; Men, Women, Handicapped and Transgendered. I guess they made enough noise at the queer center that the Trans bathroom got funded, and allocated space. Now I've never cared enough to familiarize myself with the particular struggles of intersexuals, or asexuals, but it seems to me that if the five students at the university (if we take the 1 in 2000 stat and assume around 10000 students)marched around for their own bathroom, they would be the subject of more ridicule, not less. People wouldn't take the discrimination they suffer, if any, to heart, because it would seem absurd to most that five fems want their own bathroom category.
I think that there are so many fanatic lefties in the audience, sometimes people forget that very few people give a shit about a few thousand femmy people around the world. It's the same reason there isn't a renown charity dedicated to helping families that have lost a loved one to a hippopotamus attack.
You're diluting the "reasonable sympathy pool" with this stuff. Just an observation from your Educated Affluent White Male aged 18 to 55 friend.
But by all means continue, it's in my best interest to have special interest groups appear ridiculous to the majority.
~Ag.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 25, 2010 5:21 AM
ABQ, as usual, you're wrong. There are a number of Christian nations that did vote for this.
--
But I give you credit for realising blasphemy is an imaginary crime. :)
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 25, 2010 5:25 AM
Stuff the Useless Nations, they're unrepresentative swill from mostly undemocratic nations, and the reps from democratic nations aren't elected anyway, so stuff the lot of 'em and boot them outta here a la Mr Dithers/Dagwood Bumstead .. what the hell are this trash think they doing on the soil of this here United States of America?
Posted by: ScottDogg
|
November 25, 2010 5:49 AM
In other news, the Sun is slightly larger than a golf ball.Posted by: thumbnail
|
November 25, 2010 5:51 AM
And this is why I should be made benevolent dictator for life. I'd sort this shit out quick smart by gum!
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 25, 2010 5:52 AM
Al B. Quirky, are you Christian? Because if so, I have a hard time believing your bitching about "undemocratic nations" when you subscribe to a religion that is undemocratic in nature.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 25, 2010 6:12 AM
@lordsetar
Be less ridiculous - it was the Greeks who invented Democracy which they spread, along with Christianity, to the rest of Europe & elsewhere. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, and have eventually delivered a (western) world relatively free of slavery, discrimination etc. We have a lot to lose, and Islamists are standing by ready to take our freedoms off of us.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 25, 2010 6:21 AM
Yet, Al, if you think that democracy is the best form of government, how can you honestly accept a system of government - and Christianity, with its godhead set as the single absolute moral authority (and by this virtue ruler) of the universe, is most certainly undemocratic. This raises the question: why can the laws of individual countries be subject to democratic fluctuations in the face of an absolute authority?
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 25, 2010 6:24 AM
...Oh god, 3 AM incoherence set in big time with my last comment. Allow me to restate:
How can you state that democracy is the best system of government when you subscribe to a religion with a godhead that is defined as the absolute moral authority? Such a system is by definition undemocratic, as a democratic system does not have a single agent in a position of absolute authority.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 25, 2010 6:38 AM
lordsetar
'cos Jesus said 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's' - we have separation of powers of [our given] religion & state .. unlike Islamic Republics (Iran, Pakistan etc.) and though I don't like legalised abortion (for eg.), I refrain from bombing abortion clinics; Christians are called upon to abide by the law of the land, so democracy (or man-made law, if you like) is compatible with Christianity. Islam, on the other hand, has Sharia law (Muhammad's rules) which applies to lesser or greater extent depending which country/Islamic nutjobs have seized power.
Posted by: howtomake34
|
November 25, 2010 6:43 AM
This article is inspired me a lot. Very valuable information. I am building a blog about this subject and your points gave me a lot of to think about. Thanks again.
How To Make A Solar Panel
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 25, 2010 6:45 AM
Al B Dimwit wrote:
Then why did it take so long for Christian countries to become democracies? By your logic, they all should have done so something like 1700 years ago.
Democracy happened in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Haven't you ever heard of The Divine Right of Kings, you clueless ignoramus?
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 25, 2010 6:46 AM
I'm not asking you if democracy and Christianity are compatible. I'm asking you how you can tout democracy as the best system and denounce undemocratic countries while still subscribing to Christianity, which is by nature undemocratic.Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 25, 2010 7:02 AM
@174
Indeed I have heard something about The Divine Right of Kings, in fact my hero King James VI of Scotland was a subscriber. His greatest achievement was to put the Bible in the hands of ordinary folk, which (ironically) resulted in the destruction of Divine Right of the monarchy in the British system. That should answer your 1st question, also.
@175
I disagree with your premise, for the afore-mentioned reasons.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 25, 2010 7:05 AM
...It should also be mentioned that the Christian belief that humans are imperfect is also not compatible with democracy, as democracy involves human governance. Furthermore, even if democratic process is used to pass laws rooted in Christianity, democracies are based on the principle of government being responsible to society at large; a law based on the claim that a single being holds absolute authority thus cannot be considered as democratic.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 25, 2010 7:08 AM
ABQ, your "aforementioned reasons" don't invalidate the premise. Christianity is compatible with democracy. Being pro-democracy, on the other hand, is NOT compatible with being Christian, as being Christian involves defining a single being as the absolute authority over the universe; defining a single being as having absolute authority is not democratic.
Posted by: Nij
|
November 25, 2010 7:31 AM
Bullshit.The Athenians invented a form of democracy that does not resemble the modern form in the slightest: they used direct democracy combined with random selection to appoint generals, leaders, etc. The Romans developed the Greek ideas further, as they did with a majority of Greek, especially Athenian, culture, but this form was still nowhere near what even the early US had, let alone being similar to modern democracy.
The modern form was effectively reinvented by the English in the 1200s. It developed simultaneously by them beginning then; the USA and several other countries who picked up on the idea also did some work beginning sort of 1700s.
The Romans spread Christianity around the Mediterranean beginning around 300 to 400CE. The English, French, Spanish and others spread it to the rest of the world from there, beginning after the 1300s CE.
Christianity was an entirely separate element of the culture. It had nothing to do with the development of democracy.
Posted by: Nij
|
November 25, 2010 7:37 AM
I'd also point out that Greece was entirely ruled by Rome from more than a century before Jeebus was supposedly born until at least three centuries afterwards.
The Greeks had little if any say in the matter; at the time Greeks would have been equally as happy spreading their own religion, as not caring about it in places they conquered, and less keen on Christianity of any kind.
Fuckwit. Get your facts straight.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
November 25, 2010 7:51 AM
Posted by: grizzlybaker
Caine,
But clearly much of the world is not accepting of the (relatively) common gays and lesbians. Most people, most Americans even, are still stuck in the binary sexuality mindset (look at the fool SlantedScience and his casual dismissal). Getting them to admit that there are more than heterosexuals in existence that are healthy, functioning members of society seems like a realistic, short-term goal to getting general acceptance of all sexuality.
Possibly.
On the other hand, I can imagine that someone who had homophobic views due to ignorance and/or tradition rather than genuine hatred might be willing to accept that intersex people (on learning that they exist) don't fit into normal definitions of male or female, and so shouldn't be expected to follow "normal" heterosexual behaviour. And, once they realize that, eventually extend the same principles to other LGBT people.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 25, 2010 8:01 AM
And suffrage was still very partial. I think revolutionary France was the first state to allow non-property-owners to vote - and only men, of course! It wasn't until the 19th century that true universal suffrage started appearing. For those 1900-odd years, organised Christianity wasn't noted for championing the right of women to choose their government.
Posted by: River_Tam
|
November 25, 2010 8:08 AM
Gay people are good for society. Gay people can't have unexpected pregnancies that cause them to end up on the dole, rather they often reduce the strain on society by adopting children whose parents aren't ready to raise a child, but are not willing to abort, which is their decision. Don't hate the homosexuals. Homosexuals are good for the heart, are good for a world where the next population boom can end up with world wide famine.
Posted by: KG
|
November 25, 2010 8:14 AM
Fuckwit proves again what an ignoramus he is. No, the Greeks did not spread democracy to the rest of Europe. The remnants of ancient Greek democracy - which differed fundamentally from modern representative democracy - were snuffed out by the Romans. It has no historical connection with modern democracy, which arose precisely as the hold of Christianity on Western Europe and its North American colonies declined, beginning in the 17th century. During the whole vast span of Christianity's greatest influence - from the 4th to the 16th century - there were only autocracy, feudalism and scattered city oligarchies throughout Christendom.
Posted by: lykex
|
November 25, 2010 8:16 AM
Here ya go. It's a bit rough and some mistakes might have sneaked in, but you get the idea.
Red: Voted for
Blue: Voted against
Yellow: Abstained or absent
Posted by: KG
|
November 25, 2010 8:20 AM
Given the nature of the government of 1st century Palestine - a bloody and exploitative tyranny - the message of "render Caesar..." is clearly "do not resist tyrannical governments". The US founding fathers were clearly disobeying this command, as were all who have struggled for democracy since then, while those who cheerfully obeyed the Nazi orders for war and genocide were following it.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 25, 2010 9:12 AM
John Morales @ 139;
OK, let's call it a crime of omission then. The very fact that the UN will not take a stand against such a clear abuse of human rights makes the agenda of some of its members clear as day, and is equally efficient at highlighting how little many of the other members care.
Apparently, LGBT rights just do not rate highly enough among international priorities to risk ticking off bigoted fanatics. Especially if those fanatics are sitting on large quantities of natural resources...
A pity then that its actions most certainly will have a very deleterious effect on the lives of a great many (perhaps millions of) individuals. This ill-considered statement is inevitably going to be used as justification for homophobic laws the world over. By the very fact of not condemning it, the UN's action will be interpreted as a tacit endorsement of such policies. Such is the way of global politics.
Very true.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: darksmiles
|
November 25, 2010 10:42 AM
Koshka #148,
The elected members of the UNSC don't have veto power and only have a two year term, so minimal impact if any. As for the 5 permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia, and China) Europe is over-represented and South Asia, West Asia, Africa, and Latin America are under-represented. Clearly the UNSC needs major democratic reform as well if not simple abolishment.
That is assuming the UN should be a world government instead of solely a peacekeeping institution, as you and John Morales pointed out. Even as a peacekeeping institution though, the UN could be much more effective if it was based on proportional representation instead of arbitrary boundaries. The OIC, if nothing else, shows that smallish countries can vote as a bloc to counter the unity of larger countries.
There are important global issues that could benefit from a democratic world government: reducing global pollution, disarmament, policing war crimes (the Congo Civil War, Sudan, punishing the US aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.) and crimes against humanity (access to civil rights and democracy), even standardization of tax rates to prevent the current race to the bottom that unfairly advantages the rich.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
November 25, 2010 11:16 AM
If "we" are going to fix the United Nations, the first thing should be to move the operations OUT of the United States of America.
Posted by: Jolo5309
|
November 25, 2010 12:05 PM
Why, and where would you suggest?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
November 25, 2010 12:29 PM
This was just so wrong, I have to address it. When ever a separate facility is made for transgendered people, it is not because transpeople demanded it. It is because there are visible transpeople about and some of the more homophobic people will start complaining about "men is skirt" lurking in the women's bathroom.
Posted by: Deviant One
|
November 25, 2010 2:08 PM
I am ashamed, ashamed to my core of how my country voted on this. So we have fully legal gay marriages, but we approve this crap?
For horror.
Posted by: palaeodave
|
November 25, 2010 4:52 PM
Deviant One, which country is that?
Posted by: inwhichcase
|
November 26, 2010 12:34 AM
paulmurray @146:
Yes! lykex @185 can do one, and I can, too. (lykex, I saw your map early this morning, but I had already started on mine and wanted to share it.) Such a depressing project, seeing nation-by-nation who wants to kill people for such an outrageous reason.
Map of UN member nations on the vote to remove protection from arbitrary execution based on sexual orientation.*
I broke abstain and absent into two categories, in addition to opposed and in favor:
Green: Opposed
Red: In Favor
Orange: Abstain
Light Orange: Absent
(And here is a grayscale version, if those colors aren't workable for some.)
I took the list of voting nations from Thebear's comment above (#36) and used the Robinson projection UN member nations map at wikipedia as a starting point, as suggested by John Morales @147.
And here, for comparison, are some other maps from wikipedia: GDP per capita, and here's one on child mortality.
I'm not sure I have anything cogent to add to the discussion going on here, but I wanted some visuals on this, and though others might as well.
* Caveats about this map:
1) It's pretty slapdash, but as lykex said as well, at least you can get the general idea.
2) The smaller the nation, the more likely I got its exact location wrong. The Caribbean Sea region, in particular, is atrocious. (Oh, tiny island nations! You are too confusing for me!) I'm pretty sure I at least got the right number of dots shaded the right color, even if the locations are a bit off.
3) I didn't shade the territories and whatnot, like French Guiana and all the many little islands controlled by other countries. Just left 'em UN blue. (Not 100% sure on all of these, either. Fucking geography, how does it work?)
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 26, 2010 1:07 AM
thanx inwhichcase (& lykex) yes, we get the general idea:
Christendom/'the West' + Japan, Sth Korea & India
vs
Muslims, Commies & Africans.
Posted by: inwhichcase
|
November 26, 2010 1:35 AM
That's the "idea" you got from that? Wow. Ah well, I've lurked around here long enough to know what a troll ABQ is.
P.S. I love my shiny new killfile!
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 26, 2010 2:27 AM
did i OBSERVE something wrong?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 26, 2010 2:45 AM
inwhichcase, lykex, I doff my hat to you both¹.
... And I feel a tad bad about my snark to paulmurray, because the result is visually most informative. It was a good idea!
--
¹ And unless you were expert already, I suspect your geographical knowledge-base has been improved by this exercise. :)
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 26, 2010 2:52 AM
ABQ, here's a clue: look at inwhichcase's comparative maps.
Your hasty and simplistic generalisation is not only based on faulty data, but ignores many other possible correlations (and synergies between such) and hypotheses.
Also, you started with a conclusion then accepted data that seem to validate it, rather than starting with the data. Bad technique, that, leaving the door wide open to confirmation bias.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
November 26, 2010 4:56 AM
@ John Morales:
did i OBSERVE something wrong?
what is it with leftards and information-denial?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 26, 2010 6:42 AM
ABQ, read my previous.
Refute it, if you can.