I really don't think it is based to persecute people for having consensual sex or owning rainbow watches, but LGBT shit has become so psychotically degenerate and authoritarian in the west, and is pushing so hard for the same globally, it's easy to cheer for any sort of pushback.
Sadly, defense mechanisms against LGBT encroachment have become very necessary. But for the sake of individual citizens, I hope this will be one of those laws that is in the books to act as a deterrent and won't actually be enforced too strictly.
Law is not the same as morality. Are you making a rhetorical argument? Your post doesn't seem to relate to what you're replying to.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
It's specifically because it's anti-LGBT. Hatred is starting to outpace pragmatism, and thus resistance is going to turn into vengeance. It was inevitable; the pendulum was always going to swing back in a big way. I can't blame people for feeling that way but I still don't like to see it.
Correct. Law is not the same as morality. YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
If you want to get on your soapbox, you’d do well to get well acquainted with Malaysian morality, to get the general populations’ consensus on homosexuality.
YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
It seems like this logic would exclude any conversation about unjust laws, or the state of the world in general. If you can't apply your own moral world view to the situations of others, why have a discussion forum at all?
This is why I asked if you were making a rhetorical argument. Your tone doesn't come across over the internet. There's a point where pretending to be retarded stops being pretend.
Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.
Your argument assumes I consider all the laws and 'morals' of my own country valid. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes social norms are wrong.
Authoritarianism is bad, even if it's on our side. It is NOT any government's business to tell people they can't perform mutually consensual acts. Libertarianism is flawed in that it lacks many of the defenses that a healthy society requires, but it is fundamentally true that the state has no greater right to dictate my actions than I myself do.
Restrictive laws like this are only ever, at best, a necessary evil. They are not to be celebrated.
My argument certainly does not assume you consider your country’s law & morals to be superior; it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior. It’s also very telling you say that you consider some of your place’s “social norms to be wrong.”
As for Malaysia. Tough. Luck. It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you.
It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people.
Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon. Does having a majority consensus mean any action is fair game and morally valid?
Malaysia is also the country of the people who are being arrested for owning these watches. I very much doubt they want to be arrested. Why can't they do whatever they like?
I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you
Correct, obvious, and irrelevant. The reason I said what I did was because of your erroneous initial claim!
The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people.
Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon
This is you trying to have your cake and eat it. No need to fence-sit; your position is obvious. YOU think this law is immoral, and YOU think it should be different, you clearly care neither what the minority or majority think.
Unfortunately for you, it’s not your country, so, tough luck.
I would be interested in debating the “majority opinion” aspect of your post, but you are arguing there in bad faith, so it would be a distraction.
Well gee, I hope you don't hold opinions about anything at all happening in countries other than your own because, according to you, that would just be you trying to impose your morality on others.
You've been trying to define my position for me from the beginning, which is actually quite dishonest in itself, and now you are now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I get that there are a lot of dishonest people on the internet but people like you, who decide that everything you don't agree with is bad faith by default, are just as bad. Please learn to actually hold a rational discussion instead of leading with smug, bad faith assumptions about your intellectual and ethical superiority.
I think a healthy society can do the job with encouragement and discouragement without needing to resort to oppressive laws. Oppression is the problem even now; this LGBT stuff is being upheld through regulatory capture, propaganda and the suppression of dissent.
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
Laws not only enforce cultural standards but they signal what the cultural standards are. If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Legally enforcing community standards isn't an inherent good, it's a sometimes-necessary action that needs to balance individual freedoms with the needs of the community. Whether or not it's oppressive really depends on the law itself. It very well could be oppressive if it's overly broad, disproportionate in its punishment, or invasive (as in, violating citizens' privacy and prosecuting private behavior instead of public behavior).
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Admittedly, it doesn't provide much (if any) benefit except for freedom itself. But freedom is an important consideration. The test for whether something needs to be banned ought to be whether it's causing harm, not whether allowing it provides benefit. The latter position leads to things being banned by default, which inverts the burden of proof, as it were. A society that functioned that way would inevitably become oppressive.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
I agree with this completely. That's why I think the best way forward is fewer laws and de-facto laws, not more. Instead of banning things (except where absolutely necessary) allow people to discriminate and society will sort itself out. The people should be able to decide what they will tolerate via their culture, rather than have their will haphazardly filtered through incompetent/corrupt/flawed politicians and then be dictated to by the state.
If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
This is a good point, however. Laws aren't only about restriction and punishment, they represent a society's values and signal its intent. Sometimes a law can solidify an official position but not be rigidly enforced, and sometimes that's preferable.
Counterpoint: the rainbow watches might be the Moonswatch model and it's okay to bully someone who spends $250+ on a plastic (sorry, "bioceramic" which totally isn't plastic) watch with a quartz movement that's definitely not trying to pretend it's the Omega Speedmaster. Hell, when they first starting selling them, people were flipping them for $600+ and others were camping in queues in front of stores - for a watch that's basically a $20 Timex with the Omega logo and insane markup. It's like a bad Chinese knockoff except made by the company that owns the rights to the original. Look up what the Moonswatch looks like and if you see someone wearing it, piss on him.
I don't agree with locking people up for owning or wearing things, even if ridicule may be appropriate. If something's bad enough to require prohibition, then the sale of it should be restricted and the sellers who break those restrictions should be punished (which I still don't totally agree with), not the buyers.
I do support pushback against the destructive forces of progressivism and the LGBT cancer, but I'm not always going to agree with the form or severity of that pushback.
You know a lot more about watches than I do but it sounds like an awful trend of people wasting their money on status symbols, much like people who regularly line up for the latest iPhone. Consoomers gotta consoom.
Hahah don't read too much into my post, I just saw Swatch and I remembered the Moonswatch thing.
Yeah, it was an incredible display of dumb consumerism. Seriously, as I said, it's a company selling a cheap knockoff of a watch that they also own. (Omega is owned by Swatch, Omega is a luxury brand on about the same level as Rolex, and the Omega Speedmaster is pretty iconic. There's a good chance you've seen it in a movie or somewhere.)
It was so dumb. Most people either don't wear a watch at all these days, because everyone's got a phone in their pocket anyway. Some have a "smart" watch or something like a Fitbit. Some people wear a watch because they're used to doing so but don't care, maybe they just feel uncomfortable without something around their wrist, so they buy a cheap Casio or Timex or whatever that costs a couple of bucks and lasts ages and doesn't need servicing, and then there's a small community of people who appreciate watches for the craftsmanship (or, often, for the ridiculous price tags as a show of wealth) and collect them as a hobby, but they're largely into mechanical watches - no battery, just springs and gears. The Moonswatch combines the worst aspects of the latter two - it's really just a boring quartz watch, it offers nothing compared to a $10 Casio F-91W, but it's also pretty expensive for what it is. But it was still a huge sensation and people really camped in front of stores like when a new iPhone is being launched, it really blew my mind. It does look like a Speedmaster at first glance, but the only people who even know what a Speedmaster is are the same people who also know that the Moonswatch is a cheap, ridiculously overpriced knockoff. I just don't get it.
But whatever, r/watchescirclejerk (one of the few good subs remaining on leddit, at least last I checked) had a field day with it. A field year, really.
based
I really don't think it is based to persecute people for having consensual sex or owning rainbow watches, but LGBT shit has become so psychotically degenerate and authoritarian in the west, and is pushing so hard for the same globally, it's easy to cheer for any sort of pushback.
Sadly, defense mechanisms against LGBT encroachment have become very necessary. But for the sake of individual citizens, I hope this will be one of those laws that is in the books to act as a deterrent and won't actually be enforced too strictly.
Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.
Wearing symbols that openly defy that law? You’ll get what you get.
Law is not the same as morality. Are you making a rhetorical argument? Your post doesn't seem to relate to what you're replying to.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
It's specifically because it's anti-LGBT. Hatred is starting to outpace pragmatism, and thus resistance is going to turn into vengeance. It was inevitable; the pendulum was always going to swing back in a big way. I can't blame people for feeling that way but I still don't like to see it.
Correct. Law is not the same as morality. YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
If you want to get on your soapbox, you’d do well to get well acquainted with Malaysian morality, to get the general populations’ consensus on homosexuality.
It seems like this logic would exclude any conversation about unjust laws, or the state of the world in general. If you can't apply your own moral world view to the situations of others, why have a discussion forum at all?
Unjust in YOUR opinion. The country involved? Maybe not so much. Again: it’s their country, not yours. Tough.
Conversely: put your adult pants on and RESPECT DIVERSITY; that other cultures do NOT have the same values as you do.
This is why I asked if you were making a rhetorical argument. Your tone doesn't come across over the internet. There's a point where pretending to be retarded stops being pretend.
Your argument assumes I consider all the laws and 'morals' of my own country valid. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes social norms are wrong.
Authoritarianism is bad, even if it's on our side. It is NOT any government's business to tell people they can't perform mutually consensual acts. Libertarianism is flawed in that it lacks many of the defenses that a healthy society requires, but it is fundamentally true that the state has no greater right to dictate my actions than I myself do.
Restrictive laws like this are only ever, at best, a necessary evil. They are not to be celebrated.
My argument certainly does not assume you consider your country’s law & morals to be superior; it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior. It’s also very telling you say that you consider some of your place’s “social norms to be wrong.”
As for Malaysia. Tough. Luck. It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you.
The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people.
Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon. Does having a majority consensus mean any action is fair game and morally valid?
Malaysia is also the country of the people who are being arrested for owning these watches. I very much doubt they want to be arrested. Why can't they do whatever they like?
Correct, obvious, and irrelevant. The reason I said what I did was because of your erroneous initial claim!
This is you trying to have your cake and eat it. No need to fence-sit; your position is obvious. YOU think this law is immoral, and YOU think it should be different, you clearly care neither what the minority or majority think.
Unfortunately for you, it’s not your country, so, tough luck.
I would be interested in debating the “majority opinion” aspect of your post, but you are arguing there in bad faith, so it would be a distraction.
Well gee, I hope you don't hold opinions about anything at all happening in countries other than your own because, according to you, that would just be you trying to impose your morality on others.
You've been trying to define my position for me from the beginning, which is actually quite dishonest in itself, and now you are now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I get that there are a lot of dishonest people on the internet but people like you, who decide that everything you don't agree with is bad faith by default, are just as bad. Please learn to actually hold a rational discussion instead of leading with smug, bad faith assumptions about your intellectual and ethical superiority.
Consent isn't the only factor that needs to taken into account.
There are reasons openly practicing sodomy was punished in every society since the dawn of civilization.
I think a healthy society can do the job with encouragement and discouragement without needing to resort to oppressive laws. Oppression is the problem even now; this LGBT stuff is being upheld through regulatory capture, propaganda and the suppression of dissent.
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
Laws not only enforce cultural standards but they signal what the cultural standards are. If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Legally enforcing community standards isn't an inherent good, it's a sometimes-necessary action that needs to balance individual freedoms with the needs of the community. Whether or not it's oppressive really depends on the law itself. It very well could be oppressive if it's overly broad, disproportionate in its punishment, or invasive (as in, violating citizens' privacy and prosecuting private behavior instead of public behavior).
Admittedly, it doesn't provide much (if any) benefit except for freedom itself. But freedom is an important consideration. The test for whether something needs to be banned ought to be whether it's causing harm, not whether allowing it provides benefit. The latter position leads to things being banned by default, which inverts the burden of proof, as it were. A society that functioned that way would inevitably become oppressive.
I agree with this completely. That's why I think the best way forward is fewer laws and de-facto laws, not more. Instead of banning things (except where absolutely necessary) allow people to discriminate and society will sort itself out. The people should be able to decide what they will tolerate via their culture, rather than have their will haphazardly filtered through incompetent/corrupt/flawed politicians and then be dictated to by the state.
This is a good point, however. Laws aren't only about restriction and punishment, they represent a society's values and signal its intent. Sometimes a law can solidify an official position but not be rigidly enforced, and sometimes that's preferable.
Counterpoint: the rainbow watches might be the Moonswatch model and it's okay to bully someone who spends $250+ on a plastic (sorry, "bioceramic" which totally isn't plastic) watch with a quartz movement that's definitely not trying to pretend it's the Omega Speedmaster. Hell, when they first starting selling them, people were flipping them for $600+ and others were camping in queues in front of stores - for a watch that's basically a $20 Timex with the Omega logo and insane markup. It's like a bad Chinese knockoff except made by the company that owns the rights to the original. Look up what the Moonswatch looks like and if you see someone wearing it, piss on him.
I don't agree with locking people up for owning or wearing things, even if ridicule may be appropriate. If something's bad enough to require prohibition, then the sale of it should be restricted and the sellers who break those restrictions should be punished (which I still don't totally agree with), not the buyers.
I do support pushback against the destructive forces of progressivism and the LGBT cancer, but I'm not always going to agree with the form or severity of that pushback.
You know a lot more about watches than I do but it sounds like an awful trend of people wasting their money on status symbols, much like people who regularly line up for the latest iPhone. Consoomers gotta consoom.
Hahah don't read too much into my post, I just saw Swatch and I remembered the Moonswatch thing.
Yeah, it was an incredible display of dumb consumerism. Seriously, as I said, it's a company selling a cheap knockoff of a watch that they also own. (Omega is owned by Swatch, Omega is a luxury brand on about the same level as Rolex, and the Omega Speedmaster is pretty iconic. There's a good chance you've seen it in a movie or somewhere.)
It was so dumb. Most people either don't wear a watch at all these days, because everyone's got a phone in their pocket anyway. Some have a "smart" watch or something like a Fitbit. Some people wear a watch because they're used to doing so but don't care, maybe they just feel uncomfortable without something around their wrist, so they buy a cheap Casio or Timex or whatever that costs a couple of bucks and lasts ages and doesn't need servicing, and then there's a small community of people who appreciate watches for the craftsmanship (or, often, for the ridiculous price tags as a show of wealth) and collect them as a hobby, but they're largely into mechanical watches - no battery, just springs and gears. The Moonswatch combines the worst aspects of the latter two - it's really just a boring quartz watch, it offers nothing compared to a $10 Casio F-91W, but it's also pretty expensive for what it is. But it was still a huge sensation and people really camped in front of stores like when a new iPhone is being launched, it really blew my mind. It does look like a Speedmaster at first glance, but the only people who even know what a Speedmaster is are the same people who also know that the Moonswatch is a cheap, ridiculously overpriced knockoff. I just don't get it.
Here's an article about it, including a pic of one of the queues. The third pic has the original Speedmaster on the left and the Moonswatch (with a nasty-ass color scheme) on the right. https://www.fratellowatches.com/some-afterthoughts-on-the-omega-x-swatch-speedmaster-moonswatch/
But whatever, r/watchescirclejerk (one of the few good subs remaining on leddit, at least last I checked) had a field day with it. A field year, really.
Nice.
Super based
the new collection from Swatch, "Jail Time"
The Pendulum swingeth to and fro
Bloody-back (ocean) Mountain