Posts by dan1980

Re: I feel sick

Well, that is kind of how democracy is supposed to work - you align your policies with what you think the people want and, if they agree, you get elected.

If it looks like you're in th poo then you should rethink those policies.

Not that any of that is actually what happens, of course, but I really dislike when pundits criticise politicians for have 'populist' policies. Isn't that the point? Some brand it 'pandering to the people' but so long as they actually follow through, I don't care if it is in accord with their personal position.

This post apparently brought to you by the letter 'P'.

Re: My two cents

@Vociferous

Not just that but it's also an attempt to present an easier target in place of whatever you are trying to deflect attention from.

As many people (including yourself) have noted, this keeps happening - they just update the scapegoat from time to time as people grow up. You have people blaming 'rock and roll' and then the people listening to rock and roll grow up and are the ones looking for something to blame. So, they blame heavy metal - that's clearly the problem. The people who grew up with heavy metal (not necessarily listening to it, but in that era) in turn become the ones looking for a scapegoat and bam! - there are computer games.

Computer games are slightly different due to their interactivity but there is still no evidence that they are responsible for violence. Thankfully, people who grew up with 'violent' video games are now in their 30s and 40s and so video games are less useful as a scapegoat.

I wonder what my generation will blame when we get into our 50s and 60s . . .

Re: "...an essential step in defining pathologies"

@Ken Hagan

". . . extraordinarily high IQ is a disease to be treated and (ideally) eliminated from society."

We're trying mate - don't rush us.

Re: Depressing...

"Depressing" is about right.

Not the article and not the research, but the field that this may have solid value in - depression.

We have just had a nice rant about homosexuality in the comments section of an article about Putin-vs-Cook and one thing I mentioned there is that LGBT adolescents are some 4-6 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts.

Sex and sexuality has long been a cause for anguish in many. It seems that there are still far too many taboos that have no place in rational society and as a result far too many people are left feeling that they are 'weird' or 'wrong' and many more are simply too scared to share their fantasies or desires with their partners.

In some ways, the Internet is actually a great boon for some of these people due to the much-referenced 'rule 34', which, loosely translated, can be interpreted to mean: no matter what your sexual fantasies or desires, you are not alone.

Not wanting to actually pay for the report, I wonder what constitutes 'common', 'unusual' and 'rare', however.

If 'unusual' is one in one hundred then even though that is, clearly, not a large percent, it would still mean what when you go to work in the morning, one person on your bus* will enjoy being urinated on or urinating on someone else and, should you enjoy that, you could walk onto a peak hour train in Sydney and find someone who might enjoy sharing your fantasy without having to change carriage.

Perhaps that specific fantasy is not quite that common (I have no idea - it could be) but you get my point - given the number of people we interact with and see each day, even relatively 'unusual' sexual behaviours and fantasies are never that far from us.

Which is kind of a good thing, reminded as I am of an amusing song from my younger days.

I just hope the term remains "sexual deviation" rather than "sexual deviancy".

* - Obviously it's nowhere near that neat in practice, but that's just to get an idea of this in human terms.

@AC

The question that is asked is: why must gay people "keep a low profile" if they want to live "just fine"?

Its got nothing to do with "male love". For one, the laws apply equally to lesbian "propaganda" (correct me if I am wrong, there) but more importantly, it's a battle between two opposing views of human beings. On one side, is the view that human beings share the same rights to self-expression regardless of their gender or sexuality and on the other side is the view that the rights of humans to express themselves is contingent on how closely those humans accord with beliefs of the state.

It's the difference between the view that homosexuality is acceptable and natural and does not carry with it a value judgement and the view that homosexuality is somehow a perversion of a more noble state - a "mockery" of it.

There is much in your observations, but they show clearly the marginalisation of homosexuals, if they are indeed accurate observations.

"You can get along just fine if you keep your head down" is "don't ask; don't tell", it's "I don't care what they call it, just don't call it 'marriage'", it's "I don't understand what the problem is; they have their dance halls and we have ours", it's "they've got their reservations, why do they need to come here and take our land as well?".

It's: I don't mind as long as they're over there and don't start trying to mix with us.

Re: And, if asked, those people will say "But we're not homophobic!"

@AC

Exactly. Our governments seem to be more concerned with protecting young people from what they deem to be immorality than they are with the truly alarming number of them who cut themselves and burn themselves and starve themselves and kill themselves due to the depression that comes from intolerance.

It might not be directly relevant to this article but, in Australia, LGBT adolescents are (numbers vary) some 4-6 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts and yet our politicians keep talking about marriage being this exclusive club that only "a man and a woman" can join.

Many heterosexual people (and likely some LGBT people) just don't see why it's a big deal - so you can't get married; who cares? The reality is, however, that the way it is defended is to exclude - by definition - non-heterosexual couples.

Your hang-up is that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, is it? Then the solution is easy: change the f%$king definition. How could you object to that Mr Abbott? Don't like changing a word to mean something else? We could always get rid of it and use a new or different word that doesn't discriminate.

You seem to think that 'civil partnership' is perfectly fine and fair so let's abolish the restrictive term 'marriage' and replace it with that. Done.

That was a tangent, if only because I have written so many words already in comment and ran out of strictly relevant things to say. Nevertheless, it is relatively on-topic as it addresses - as the poster above did - the essential hypocrisy or at least wrong-headed priorities in justifying the marginalising of a segment of the community in order to protect children.

Re: As I previously stated

@chivo243

As I have said above, religion does indeed enter into this discussion because it is the contention of those religious anti-gay people that being gay is a choice and a perversion of the natural order and of their God's laws.

Everything such people say about homosexuality must be understood in that context if it is to be understood at all. Indeed I can think of no reason why any non-religious person would believe that homosexuality is a choice that one makes.

From a Christian world view (which is where Putin is coming from), God made people in his image and we are of the divine and our true natures are to be god-like. That God also defined an order of male + female and proscribed homosexuality as a sin. What does it mean, inside that framework, to then say that homosexuality is not a choice or a perversion but a natural occurence?

If we are of the divine and the divine abhors homosexuality then it simply must be a choice because if it is natural then either God made these people deliberately perverted and irredeemable or the believers are just plain wrong - one way or another.

Now, there are plenty of Christian (and Muslim) believers who have made exactly that move - they have decided that they (and/or their pastors and perhaps friends and families) have been wrong and that homosexuality is not a sin. By his words, it appears that Tim Cook is Christian and he does not believe his homosexuality is sinful and many, many Christians agree with him.

Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin is not one of them and neither, it seems, are many of the members of the Russian Federal Assembly.

The point is that many of the arguments against homosexuality and especially any that result in repression of homosexuals or denial of their rights can only be sustained when they are coupled with the belief that homosexuality is not natural but a choice. And that belief can only be justified from a religious world-view because all we have learned about human (and animal) sexuality leads us to the conclusion that that just isn't the case.

So yes, religion is relevant to many discussions on how non-heterosexual people are treated and is doubly-relevant when the discussion centres on a country where the President is widely credited for a revival of the Church and frequently flanked by Russian Orthodox priests.

Re: This post has been deleted by a moderator

@Abacus

There is also another belief that you and many people who share your views hold, which is that being gay is a choice.

This is also the position of religious anti-gay activists because to believe otherwise is to believe that their God created someone who was guilty of mortal sin by design. In your words, they would be BORN as deviants.

I must assume you believe that homosexuality is a choice because your whole argument falls down if you don't. Fortunately for us all, there is no evidence that this is the case.

What is known is that sexuality is not neat and humans occupy points on a scale between opposite-sex and same-sex attraction. Men do tend to be more polarised than women, in that they are more likely to be exclusively or strongly hetero- or homosexual but there are still many people to be found at all points.

It is my belief that so far as society plays a role, it is in either forcing people to occupy a point on that spectrum that does not actually represent them or accepting them and thereby allowing them to occupy and express that place on the spectrum where they naturally sit.

In that way, the 'choice' is not whether you are or are not homosexual (or bi-sexual) but whether you accept yourself and your nature or you repress who you are and force yourself to conform to the labels and behaviour that are dictated for you.

It is in this way that people like you contribute to the unhappiness in this world and, whether you believe it or not, contribute to the high incidence of depression and suicide in LGBT teens and young adults.

Re: Something lost in the translation?

@Abacus

The inherent contention you are making is that homosexuality is not 'normal'.

To make such an argument, please first define the term: 'normal'. No special pleading, please.

Re: This post has been deleted by a moderator

Deviant?

What do you mean by this loaded word? In its most bland and straight-faced definition, one can say that a "deviant" is anyone that does not fit in with the norm.

Now, in that driest definition, homosexuals are indeed "deviants" due to the simple fact that heterosexuals are in the majority. But then that use of the word "deviant" has next to no useful meaning. Anyone who smokes is a "deviant"; anyone who has red hair is a "deviant"; anyone who wears bright yellow socks is a "deviant". In Australia, anyone who was born in Iceland is a "deviant", as is anyone born in, say, Chad.

Jews are "deviants", as are Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals.

That's rather a long way of saying that, clearly, using "deviant" to mean those whose behaviour is not shared by the majority is fairly pointless because everyone is then a "deviant" in some way or another.

So, I must assume that you are using the word in its fuller sense to describe behaviour that is quite markedly outside of the norms of the society they inhabit - especially in reference to sexual behaviour.

That sense of the word is employed in a perjorative manner to say that the person in question engages in behaviour that is not only different to what the majority enagages in but so different that the behaviour is utterly at odds with normal, right-thinking folk and should be condemned and discouraged and the person should at the least be ashamed but preferably also punished or persuaded/forced to change their ways until they conform with 'normal' behaviour.

In that sense, what behaviours are 'normal' and what behaviours are 'deviant' is a very subjective judgement, as it is to define what is "perversion".

The "modern" (presumably western) world is not "pro-perversion" and it is not anti-morality. What it is - or is trying to be - is pro-rights and anti-prejudice. It's not perfect but we're getting there one step at a time (and they're not all forward steps).

You, like so many others who hold this position, don't seem to view the ability to live a life free of discrimination as a human right. You seem to believe that only those who are part of the majority need be considered. If the majority are heterosexual, then why shouldn't they be able to fire someone for being gay? Or a black. Or Chinese. Or a Muslim. Why must these good, wholesome, normal people have to consider and respect the rights of those others?

Remember that saying that the majority should not have to cater to the minority was a core argument of many who fought against the civil rights movement in the US, as it has been anywhere that minorities are repressed by majorities.

Frankly, I am glad that is not the case (anymore) and it is, I believe, the most important moral advancement that we, as a species, have ever achieved. That advancement is tied to the ethical innovation that is the concept of 'human rights', which is to say that you, just for being human, deserve rights. You shouldn't have to fight for them or win them or convince people you deserve them. They are yours and they can't be taken away just because the majority says so.

I am sad that you do not see that but the rest of us will get on fine without your approval.

I was going to try and work the reference in but couldn't.

Re: Something lost in the translation?

@Mark

"I'm dumbfounded by this. But I don't recall Cook's coming out a call for sodomy."

Naive. I bet you're one of those people who think that legalising gay marriage won't end in bestiality.

Oh you innocent fool . . .

So we're clear (not for Mark - I'm sure he gets it) I am being ironic.

Re: Of course, the tension over Ukraine has something to do with this too....

Explain?

Re: Cheap dig

@FreemonSandlewould

Putting aside much of what you have said to keep this response brief (something I am not known for), there is a crucial, fundamental difference here that you are not getting - possibly deliberately

That is that there is, in society at large, the assumption that people are heterosexual and when it is suspect that someone with a public profile is not heterosexual, there are whispers and rumours and innuendo - the word 'sausage', for instance.

Ignoring my own goal of keeping this brief, please explain how getting up and saying that yes, you are gay and you want to tell young people who are gay and might be having difficulties that they can accomplish anything they want¹ can in anyway be described as slapping the world across the face with his 'sausage'?

You don't get up and put to rest your sexuality because there is no need - you are in the majority and no one is talking behind your back snickering at you and your 'straight' ways. No one asks you if you're bringing your husband along to the Christmas party or tells you that you need to find a nice boy to settle down with because they don't assume you're homosexual.

My partner is afraid of spiders. "I don't mind them as long as they don't come anywhere near me" is the common line. There is no room big enough for the two of them to share - if one is in our bedroom or lounge room or hall, it has to go. Not killed - nothing so cruel - but gone, otherwise who knows what they might do.

You, sir, are afraid of homosexuals. You don't want them hurt or killed, of course, and they are free to live as they please, but just make sure you don't have to see them or hear about them. You say you "don't care" but you are lying - to yourself.

It's indicative that you view this as having gay people 'force[d]' on you - as though a person standing up and saying that he is gay someone places any obligation on you, except to leave him to live his life. He's not asking for your permission; he's giving support to other gay people the same way a black sports star might go back to his community² and talk to the kids, telling them to stay in school and believe in themselves and to not let other people tell them they're not good enough to pursue their dreams.

Your comments just show everyone how threatened you feel.

1 - Just the way women have been saying exactly the same to young girls.

2 - I use this not to say that white people are CEOs and black people are only good for physical activity, but simply because I am Australian and our heroes are, mostly, people good a kicking or hitting balls around and it's a big thing here for young Indigenous and Islander footballers to visit their communities as inspiration and support for the young kids there.

Re: Someday

@Trevor_Pott

Surely it would be more concise just to call them 'Haggards', no?

(Or 'Wileses' or 'Longs' or, perhaps most closely matched to your term, 'Murphies'.)

Re: Love and Hate

@Preston Munchensonton

While you are correct, in that Russia is hardly alone in showing intolerance, there is a big and rather fundamental difference, which is the direction the country is moving in.

At least in principal, 'western' countries like the ones you mention, believe that humans are equal and should have equal rights. The actual extent of that, in practice, is less-than-perfect and often ends up with people arguing over what should be considered a 'right'. (Marriage being the current big one.)

The point is that those countries you have mentioned have, broadly, accepted that things like sexuality, gender, race, etc... can't and shouldn't be used to assign rights.

The difference is that Russia has enacted laws that actually move the OTHER WAY - taking rights (to free speech and association) away from a section of the population.

Re: This post has been deleted by a moderator

@MyBackDoor

I must admit that I didn't see the posts that were deleted (not even the one that might have been in response to one of my posts) so I can't confirm or reject what you say.

I can only tell you that I don't believe that the good folks at the Register are censoring pro-Russia comments as they tend to give us pretty free rein to spout whatever we feel, be it well-informed and well-considered or the regurgitated ravings of some public mouth-piece. I see very, very few posts deleted so perhaps the high number being deleted here is due to a single user posting the same sentiment multiple times.

But, again, I haven't seen the nixed comments so I won't disagree with you about it but neither will I condemn the mod for acting over-zealously in an effort to clamp down on any sentiments that he (it is 'he' now, right?) disapproves of.

Re: This post has been deleted by a moderator

Pfft - unicorns. Weak.

Re: This post has been deleted by a moderator

@MyBackDoor

The medium makes it a little difficult to be 100% clear on your point but I am taking it to mean that you believe that those who are for gay rights are exactly the same as the Russian government and any criticism they make of these actions are just as one-sided and dogmatic.

If that's not really what you are saying then I apologise.

The point here is that homosexuals are humans. People standing up for them and criticising the Russian position on them are not promoting gays. They are not saying gays are good because they are gay and that their orientation/lifestyle/preference is, inherently, a good and positive thing; they are not "gay for gays".

What that are saying is that gays are good because they are HUMAN and thus deserve the same rights and respect as other humans.

By contrast, the Russian regime is saying, very clearly, that homosexual people should not have the same rights as heterosexual people. Further, they, and groups like ZEFS, are saying that gays are bad purely because they are gay. A monument and interactive display dedicated to Steve Jobs and his creations is now, suddenly considered to be bad simply because the person currently running the company is gay.

His contributions, management style and personal qualities are exactly the same as what they were a few days ago and the company and their products are similarly exactly as they were. The only thing that has changed is that Tim Cook has publicly acknowledged his sexuality and this, alone, is enough to (apparently) change an inanimate object from something that is good into something that is bad and must be removed, despite that object not changing one bit.

Re: Someday

@Bullseyed

"Homophobe" is about right for the context. Most hatred is based on fear - fear of the new or the different. In Russia, as with some of the religiously-motivated in the US, the fear is actually pretty openly stated - they are afraid that homosexual people want to 'recruit' the young people; turn them homosexual.

The motives are never really explained - perhaps they think they are building a big gay army - but it is professed as true and used to scare parents who might otherwise be more moderate and have never really worried about homosexuals. It's invoking the 'protect the children' to scare people into repressing their fellow humans.

That said, English, as a living, evolving language sometimes makes it hard to define the meaning of a word by its etymology. The generally accepted definition of homophobia is not just the fear of homosexuals but an opposition to and discrimination of them.

So yes, homophobia really is the correct term here whichever way you interpret it.

Re: Cheap dig

@Chris G

"Russia" doesn't have a sexual preference; Russia is a country, you see. It is bit of land (rather a lot) with somewhat elastic boundaries that contains about a hundred and fifty million people.

I firmly believe that each of those 150,000,000 people should be able to express their sexual preferences but that ability is exactly what the Russian government has legislated against them doing.

The point of human rights and freedoms is that they are not - or at least should not be - contingent on the preferences of the majority.

So, if you want an 'adult comment', try that; the current state of Russia is a LEGALLY PROTECTED AND ENFORCED discrimination of the minority by the majority. Now get to the back of the bus!

Re: Words fail

At least he only believes homosexuals should be banned - a generous concession, I feel, given the way some others speak.

One of the key problems here is the way these people believe that homosexuality is a choice and I believe it is telling when they are found out to be totally not gay at all.

If it's a choice, then those pastors and politicians and activists aren't really homosexual - it's just a problem or due to the influence of Satan or society or whatever. Good, god-fearing parents can be reassured that their gay children are also not really gay and it can be fixed by adding more Jesus; pray the gay away.

That some of the most vocal anti-gay activists - be they priests or pastors or politicians or public figures - are themselves homosexual and terrified of their own natures is no surprise. They have grown up believing that homosexuality is wrong - a sin - and when they find that they have those same urges and desires, they go on the offensive. In part it is no doubt to throw people off their trail, like those who feign disgust at others when they have broken wind, but it is also because they desperately want to believe that they are not homosexual.

It's got to be society's fault, you see. It's all those left-wing gays pushing their left-wing gay agenda, trying to turn other people into left-wing gays (especially your children). Or is it the influence of Satan, who is operating gleefully in this world due to society's tolerance of those same left-wing gays.

Yes, that's it. But them? No, not gay. Not at all.

Re: Why would anyone want one or invest in such a thing?

@Captain Scarlet

"This is the perfect device for them and means they don't have to dye their hair a silly colour."

Or you could do what I did which was to stop dyeing your hair silly awesome colours.

Ahh - nothing like stopping doing something you like because other people are now doing the same thing. Little else fills a souls with quite as much self-righteous bitterness. (I'm serious - I really did have weird hair, I really did stop because it was becoming too common and I really am bitter about it. Nose, meet knife.)

Re: Why would anyone want one or invest in such a thing?

@Andy

For the same reason they buy books called 'What men know about xxxx' that are completely blank.

It's - at least for the person buying it - humorous and ironic and many of them think it will make a good Christmas present. (They're wrong, but that's beside the point.)

Of course, this could have been offered as a 3D printed gimmick on one of the standard websites but putting something silly on Kickstarter tends to get you a bit more press and thus more success.