elenhil

Doesn't the Go Home option get disabled automatically whenever you start a game with ICAIO? That's what the notification says, anyway.

Sheson, about that 2-stage DynDOLOD+Open Cities instruction. Should one enable/disable Candles/GlowFX/Windows for one of the steps?

I still don't quite get how this should work in terms of overwriting other files. STEP guide says it should go under N (basically, last). This makes it overwrite a number of STEP mods not included in the Compilation:

I am yet to see as much as one instance of the alleged disingenuous cherry-picking and deliberate presentation of things out of general context pointed out specifically. Shouldn't be that much difficult, given that the cherries and the general context are still there.

This argument is very bad, you start out with state policy and end with a generelization of your idea of family.Nowhere in this paragraph was I giving you a generalisation of my idea of a family. Frankly, throughout this whole discussion I was deliberately trying to avoid references to my personal ideas as any kind of premise. More to the point, that was the idea of the family as expressed elsewhere in the same Constitutional Court's judgement, and none other. The point I was making is, that the differences show that the similarities you pointed out provide nothing to the argument. The intrinsic differences between sets of subjects have zero relevance to the extrinsic relationships within them. I specifically gave you an analogy involving crimes of entirely different nature, which, being a crime, nevertheless have a similar relationship to law and order (to which relationship the exact nature of the offence has no relevance). But you just don't get it (and that, having tried numerous times - and failed - to have you understand a basic definition of an analogy, is a statement of fact, not an insult or a judgement on your mental faculties). So, one last more time: whatever the nature of the offence and the nature of the harm in these analogies (FGM, Sharia, predatory paedophilia, polygamy, homosexual propaganda among minors, whatever), they are, nevertheless, similarly incompatible with law and order (that is to say, all of them have a negative relationship towards it), and therefore cannot be 'tolerated' in a 'pluralistic' way. Prove that you can tolerate an act or an agenda incompatible with law and order and you will prove that homosexual propaganda among minors can, probably, be tolerated regardless of how incompatible with morals of a particular society it is. That's what analogies are for in the first place. You are claiming, that the justification is objective. But in reality, the same logic you applied can be applied to justify racism or any kind of discrimination.Yes, it could. Wholly unsuccessfully, I might add. Because capital punishment would not be proportional and limited. Notice that the law is very much limited and proportionate (classifying homosexual propaganda as a minor civil offence, not a criminal one, so nothing like elwaps' millions of homosexuals facing immediate prison): As for objectivity, the same logic a) applies to homosexual propaganda committed by any person regardless of their sexual orientation (just like a ban on paedophilia is objective because it does does not selectively target certain cultures/communities where 'dancing boys' are OK), b) it applies to any kind of information deemed harmful to children (be it homosexual propaganda, encouragement to suicide, smoking, drinking, illegal drug use, violent scenes, extremism, etc.). Which, together with this, indeed, being the actual moral view of the majority of Russians, makes it rather objective (that is, not dependent on the subject). You might have claimed subjectivity had the law been selectively targeting one part of the society instead of the harmful phenomena or had the justification misrepresented the actual views prevalent in the Russian society. You truely seem to oppose democracy, Undemocratic sensibilities? I say! That is one hell of a non sequitur. Might as well have accused me of anti-Semitism or hidden IS sympathies. That would have been an even better excuse to exit on a high horse.

And what do you suggest I quote instead? Russia's own legislation, only to be summarily dismissed as inadmissible (because it is, allegedly, 'clearly' dictated by homophobia, not genuine justice)? You were in need of a legal definition of discrimination (not a dictionary one), so I obliged. So, unless you were prepared to summarily dismiss ECtHR as, for example, a corrupt organisation wholly in the pocked of their LGBT lobby paymasters (or the Freemasons, whatever), I thought you might find its definition useful enough. Still, being a legal commonplace, it won't be all that difficult to find a similar one elsewhere. If you are interested in my personal opinion, I personally do not subscribe to ECHR (or, for that matter, UDHR) in their entirety. I feel that some of the rights enshrined in them are bogus human rights. Like the right to free (and compulsory) education. Or a right to housing. Or to a protection against unemployment. This is wishful thinking, not a fundamental human right. My two cents (with which I have, I believe, been rather frugal so far). Please do not rush to assume that I'm against education or housing of employment. It's just that I don't think they are as much a human right as a right to life or a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is. More like a politician's manifesto than actual law. My apologies. I genuinely did use 'to justify' in legal, not moral sense. Got a bit carried away with the Legalese, I think.

Sorry if it did offend you. I had sincerely meant it as a compliment that you rushed to reassure me, to the point of overlooking my point. Kind of shows that for you human feelings are more important than logic. As I said, sympathetic.

Of course your not going to be banned for your posts here! :sigh: I was not saying I was afraid you were going to ban me. I was presenting a genuine logical question (with a bit of hypothetical relevance to make it less dry). I am rather disappointed that you seem to have totally overlooked it (even if it really paints a sympathetic picture of you personally).

You still don't get analogies, do you? Analogies by definition say absolutely nothing about intrinsic similarities. Try this one, then: Libel is illegal High treason is illegal Which can be presented as an analogy: Libel is just as* illegal as is high treason *Here 'as' does not imply degree of illegality. Which is an analogy, implying that both constitute an offence (that is, have a similar relationship to legality - similarity of relationship), while most certainly not implying similarity of nature (the nature of the offence, indeed, being quite different), or even similarity of the gravity of the offence. Notice that both libel and high treason can be construed as one person's exercise of free speech. Which, in this instance, a state can legitimately limit. And the state is within its right to ban divorce. Which, historically, many states did, and only stopped doing under explicit pressure from the public (that is, through a publicly initiated constitutional amendment, for example). Which the public, naturally, had a right to exert. You might find it interesting to know that while divorce was still illegal in Ireland (that is, before 1996), there were cases brought before ECtHR arguing that divorce is, essentially, a human right. ECtHR ruled otherwise. See, for example, Johnston and others vs Ireland, Application no. 9697/82, December 18, 1986. So, the people of the Republic of Ireland decided to allow divorce, which made it legal. Theoretically, they could just as well decide to outlaw it back. Which will make it illegal once again. Notice any similarities (not analogies this time) with Russia? BTW, if Z is watching this: the example of Ireland does not prove such matters can only be dealt with via a constitutional amendment. It just so happened that in Ireland divorce had been banned at the highest legal level. So it took an appropriately high-level measure to legalise it. A more appropriate example world be Russia legalizing polygamy. Since it is, to the best of my knowledge, not contrary to the Constitution per se (only to Russian morals), a hypothetical future Muslim majority (they are, after all, rather diligent in terms of procreation) might one day have it legalised without having to change the Constitution. The state does not protect the family simply because (or as long as) it is based on love, mutual understanding and good education. It protects the family because of the special value the society places on the family as the primary natural establishment for its reproduction. Which does not apply to homosexual unions, extramarital cohabitation, or other forms of relationships contrary to the idea of a family. Notice that the Constitutional Court's judgement, when justifying its decision to protect children for attempts at making them form notions of traditional and non-traditional conjugal relations being socially equivalent, is, in fact, applying ECtHR's own logic that 'protection of the family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment'. It is precisely because homosexual unions by their very nature do not constitute 'families in the traditional sense' that the court does not extend them the special protections enjoyed by natural families (that is, treats them differently). So is being homosexually active. 200%+ increase in HIV infections is quite a severe health problem, in my book.Corellation is not causation.Indeed, it is not. Proving causation or otherwise would have required human experiments, which most states bans on, incidentally, moral grounds. So, in the absence of proven causation, the whole condition itself is instead considered dangerous to health, whatever the underlying causes and mechanisms. Which, incidentally (seem to be having a lot of incidents lately), is similar to what we have with smoking. You can't really prove that smoking causes cancer in humans because of the above. You can just observe degrees of correlation and linkage and conclude that the likelihood is high enough for everyone to agree to call that a fact (which, in strict terms, it is not). Doesn't stop the government from thinking being a smoker (or, for that matter, a MSM) is bad for your health. Not quite. In Russia, you are also prohibited from encouraging people to smoke or, indeed, from propagandising to that effect. More importantly, propaganda of smoking among minors is explicitly prohibited as part of the very same legislation that bans... you guessed it: propaganda of homosexuality among minors! By the way, I personally believe that a total ban on smoking per se is just a matter of time. Now, would you like to share your thoughts on the legality of it? Not quite (though Nebulous112, as you might have noticed, concludes that anything can be justified so long as it is enshrined in law). My reasoning so far rested on the ECtHR definition that required the justification to be objective and reasonable, and the legal action itself to be proportionate and strictly limited. So, my reasoning would not justify, for example, for propaganda of homosexuality among minors to be punishable Sharia-style.

From ECtHR, for example. According to which, a difference in treatment (that's discrimination for you and me) 'is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification' (cf. para. 37 of ECtHR judgement on Karner v. Austria, application no. 40016/98, 24 July 2003). How's that for a case of legitimate discrimination: 'protection of the family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment' (Ibid., para. 40)? Have a bit of a read on the subject, will you: from The Principle of Non-Discrimination in International Law by Curtis F. J. Doebbler To wit: the Constitutional Court of the Russian Feederation defined the prohibition of propaganda of homosexuality to minors as prohibition of “actions to purposefully and without supervision disseminate information able to harm the health, moral and spiritual development of persons whose age deprives them the possibility of critically evaluating such information themselvesâ€. You are perfectly free to see Russian morals as subjective. It does, however, seem obvious to me that active homosexuality is a threat to the health of children in form of a substantially higher risk of HIV, STDs, and mental health issues, because that is the statistical fact on both sides of the Atlantic. Isn't Cameron, basically, doing the same thing by, for example, ignoring ECtHR rulings on prisoners' voting rights (or, more generally, threatening to leave the Convention because he does not like some of these rulings and likes to bring back British legal sovereignty)? Bet he doesn't get nearly as much bad press for it.

By the way, should a person, hypothetically, be banned from posting here for insulting others (like having 'disingenuous at best and offensive at worst' moral views), would any of you see that as a discriminatory subjective morality-driven limitation of their freedom of speech? Because a comment is insulting only as far as it subjectively diminishes another person's notion of their dignity (which is likewise subjective). Not to mention that whoever judges the hypothetical incident is subjective, too. Just askin'.

The fact that you're describing the postcode lottery in the UK, which the government claims it's committed to abolishing (so, theoretically, every UK lesbian will eventually be eligible for the full 12+3 cycles) does not in any way mean that the drain is non-existent. That would be like me arguing that since, in reality, the homosexual propaganda legislation is not being enforced all that well (with some judges, like some CCGs, applying the full extent of the law and others doing nothing at all), the laws in question are only a hypothetical limitation of freedom of speech. Or like pro-European politicians in the UK arguing that, despite the express aim of an ever-closer union, the UK shouldn't object to the federalisation of Europe because the federalisation is hypothetical. A matter of policy cannot be hypothetical. So, given that the Department of Health says 'all CCGs, in the long term, should provide the full three cycles of IVF as set out in the NICE guidelines', it is just a matter of time (which is OK by me since I was discussing long-term budgetary effects). Who would then choose to pay tens of thousands of pound for something you can get free (at the point of use)? All of which, by the way, does nothing to disprove that, however they are paying for it, homosexuals are, to put it bluntly, not nearly as good at procreation as heterosexuals, which was my point initially. Well, Russia has one of the highest smoking rates in the world at 40%. Lets see if they try to limit the smokers rights. They did. Just like in the UK and the rest of Western Europe. A bit of a shame the smokers don't have nearly as much PR clout to shout discrimination. By the way, (since we were just talking about 'millions' of suffering homosexuals, too), would you care to compare the cost of treating lung cancer with the cost of treating HIV and the STDs accompanying this 'sexual preference'? Most of which, by the way, is money going abroad to the pharmaceuticals out there (so, a net loss for the economy). No I do not. I take it from the way these people identified themselves. '[E]ither reported having one or more male sex partners or who self-reported as gay/homosexual or bisexual'. Or, in case of HIV, from CDC surveillance data registering 'the behavior that transmits HIV infection'. So, a homosexual getting HIV and STDs is the government's (and not even the present one's) fault. Is a smoker getting lung cancer, or a heavy drinker getting cirrhosis, or a 'legal highs' user getting, well, dead, too? I find it rather convenient that you can shift the blame for your actions (and your ignorance) on to the Big Daddy.

I believe your position is, sadly, a mix of contradictions and unfounded claims. Firstly, it does not take unanimous support to amend a constitution. All it takes is a 'supermajority', the criteria for which vary (3/4, 2/3, etc.) and therefore are entirely arbitrary. Can't for the life of me understand why you keep calling 75% (that's your 3/4) 'unanimity' and 86% a lack of one. Or, for that matter, how you managed to drift from 'approaching unanimity' through 'near unanimity' to, now, unqualified (total) unanimity. Secondly, it does not take a constitutional amendment to impose limitations (of whatever nature) that the law already provides for either directly (through an article of the constitution) or by virtue of the state being party a higher-level international legal instrument (like UDHR, ECHR, ICCPR, etc) providing for it. Now, both the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 55(3)) and the the UDHR (Article 29(2)) (not to mention other legally binding international human rights instruments) expressly provide for limiting all manner of individual rights and freedoms on the now familiar grounds of protection of, among other considerations, public morals. Ergo, to act on Article 29(2) of UDHR a state does not need either to amend its constitution or to have a unanimous, 3/4 or even 2/3 public support for it. Frankly, it does not even need to call a referendum (that is, to have an actual majority) at all. All of these are the artificial barriers you wished into being. Thirdly, you have no grounds to claim that the legal framework treats the morals justification as in any way different from, for example, requirements of public safety, or public order, and that the requirements of morals, allegedly, cannot ever be enforced ('dictated') without discrimination. That is, no grounds other than your chanting SUBJECTIVE! SUBJECTIVE! You may believe so. You may even think it's objective to believe so (how quaint!). Heck, you may even set that in EdStonetm. But, however much you 'simply inherently know it' (or even know of a Wikipedia article to that effect), it does not make it a legal fact. Actual international laws treat public morality as just as objective a justification as public security or public safety is. By the way, doesn't your stance of morals mean a 'wholly entirely doubly subjective' ban on FGM is discriminatory of the Asian and African community, or a by definition no less objective ban on sex with a minor discriminatory of the paedophile community, or an completely morally subjective ban on polygamy discriminatory of the Muslim community? Fourthly, you keep referring to the legislation in question as a 'reform' of sorts. No doubt to try to imply that the state has to jump through extra legal hoops (like amending the constitution) to enact it. The premise, however, is unfounded and wrong. It takes a very curious view of the Russian society to think that to ban homosexual propaganda among minors is a social reform, while to allow it is not (and, therefore, the opposite of reform, that is, the status quo). And, by the way, you simply cannot both claim that social reform requires unanimous public support and, at the same time, argue that the Russian society needs to reform to become more democratic, pluralistic, and inclusive to suit the wishes of one particular minority. Fifthly (is there really such a word?), you seem to mistakenly think that the purpose of civil rights is to unconditionally protect each and every minority interest. That in a truly democratic society every minority (that, by definition, never composes a % majority) will have its way nonetheless. Need I point out the contradiction in this statement? Lastly, to say that a factual statement (what is and what is not contrary to Russian morality) is subjective while at the same time adequately representing the views of 87% of the population is a contradiction plain and simple. P.S. So, whenever what a society thinks happens to coincide with an official teaching of a church, it means that the said church is somehow not separated from the state (some here even went as far as claiming it's tantamount to a theocracy)? OK, then. So, the Russian is state is not separated from what, the Russian Orthodox Church? And the... what, Muslim church, too (since they expressly support the ban)? And the... err... Jewish church (ditto). And the, well, Buddhist church (ditto)? And, of course, the Atheist church. Because that's what follows from the Russian Interfaith Council's position and the opinion polls among atheists. Man, that Russia is definitely a theocracy!

Sure thing, a lesbian union can, theoretically, have anything like 20 children. Would you care to estimate what a drain it will be for the healthcare system to fund that number of artificial inseminations, or even IVFs? Don't know about US, but in Britain it's supposedly 500 to 1000 pounds a cycle for IUI (with each cycle's maximum chance of success being no more than 15.8% if you're a woman under 35). Rather a slim chance, to my mind. So, after the mandatory 12 failed cycles of IUI your GP will recommend you IVF, which supposedly costs up to 5000 pound a cycle or more, and has only double the success rate of IUI (32.2% if you're a woman under 35). So, a lesbian who is under 40 and has already had her 6 000 to 12 000 taxpayer pounds' worth of IUI treatment may then demand her generously offered 15 000+ taxpayer pounds' worth three-cycle IVF treatment. That makes the state sponsor wannabe lesbians mothers to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds per person. For comparison, a heterosexual UK female can get pregnant for free and give hospital birth for under just 1 700 pounds. Less if it's a home birth (something NICE took to recommending because it costs Her Majesty's Government nearly 50% less). So much of 'balancing everything out'. All of which partially explains why, according to US Census data, for example, only about 9% of same-sex unions are having children of their own (through either IS, IVF, or whatever) So it's the 91% of freeriders I was talking about. Too many damn people in Russia? You gotta be kidding me. When was the last time you looked at the map? Do you know the size of that thing? Compared to some other Western countries, Russia is very much underpopulated. There are whole ghost towns and towns with no children whatsoever. Not because they're all happily living in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but because the population is rapidly ageing. There are now 40% fewer teenagers in Russia than it was 15 years ago at the height of the xUSSR crisis. Hence the ghost towns. Hence the expected collapse of the welfare system. It's OK for you to sit in the US claiming there are too many Russians in Russia anyway. Had you been living in Russia instead you'd be very much concerned with who's gonna foot your pension bill, because there's not enough damn people to do so. The local equivalent of Mexican immigrants from ex-Soviet republics, who are the temporary solution to a glaring workforce deficit, are not interested in investing in the country, they're sending their wages across the border to their respective states (some of which have more than half of GDP coming that way). So they won't. I'm sorry, but are you trying to say that straight people don't get STDs? You might as well have asked whether non-smokers get lung cancer. Which they do. About 20 times less often, though. CDC data shows that in 2014, MSM accounted for, for example, 82.9% of all male P&S syphilis cases with known information about sex of sex partners. It's a shame CDC does not collect data for lesbians (which, by the way, does not enable you to claim lesbians don't get infected [more often]). Would you like to know how much an actively homosexual US male is more likely to contract HIV? Or how much this 'lifestyle choice' costs the government? Not if you're a Universal Church of Condom the Almighty believer, I'd wager (wouldn't it be nice if HIV and STDs were entirely preventable through condom use? Alas, no). Still, there are things a condom can never protect from, like mental health issues. Which, even in a beacon of tolerance that is the UK, homosexuals are significantly more likely to suffer from (had the study been conducted in Russia, you would, most probably, have argued that it's the rampant homophobia that's driving them crazy).

OK, let me get this whole subjectivity thing straight. Morality is subjective. A Russian judge is subjective. His judgement is entirely subjective. His entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is entirely doubly subjective. A whole panel of subjective Russian high court judges' entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is wholly entirely doubly subjective. So far, so good. A European Court of Human Rights judge is subjective. His judgement is entirely subjective. His entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is entirely doubly subjective. A whole panel of subjective ECtHR judges' entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is wholly entirely doubly subjective. A whole panel of subjective ECtHR judges' wholly entirely doubly subjective judgement that the wholly doubly subjective panel of Russian (Polish, British, whatever) judges “y reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries . . . are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements [of morality] as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet themâ€' is... how subjective exactly? And, more importantly, how subjective is a judgement of what are the requirements of morality if said judgement is, according to nationwide surveys, approved by 86% of citizens? yes, please explain. In a welfare state one's pension is other people's taxes; ideally, these other people are your own children, and the state is underwriting your welfare check now in hope that it will get the money back from your children in the future. If it's not your children, then it's someone else's. Someone who, unlike you (not you personally, I believe), did want/care/manage to procreate. And whose children will now have to sponsor not only their old folks' retirement package but yours and your partner's as well. Not that anyone would hold it against you if you were childless because of some health problems. Which is not the same as when you're childless because two homosexual men can't beget children. Or when one's homosexual lifestyle left them with an STD-affected fertility problem (don't know about your country, but in Russia experts estimate that STDs account for up to 60% of cases of infertility). So, one homosexual person's 'lifestyle choises' are, in fact, a tax on future generations. Or, rather, an unsustainable drain on the economy. Enough freeriders are bound to bring the welfare system down. And that without even touching upon other dangers of an ageing society. That is why the legislators are saying that you cannot really claim 'sexual autonomy'. Nothing is autonomous when it comes to the fundamental unit of a society. Not while you're living in one. That is OK by me, but this self-ascribed right is, sadly, not protected by either the state or the international human rights instruments. Which makes it even less uncontroversial (and enforceable) than, say, a 'right to euthanasia'.

By not being discriminatory, that's how. You can't claim discrimination unless you prove the difference in treatment has no objective and reasonable justification (that is, by proving that the justification given by the courts is neither objective nor reasonable instead, which I believe would require some intense legal discernment on your part). Do kindly try to point it out specifically. By the way, why do you think Apartheid was illegal?

Ed Miliband tried something like that (heard of the guy? I nearly hadn't). Didn't make it a fact, though... Seriously, Z (hope it's OK to skip the numbers part). What article of UDHR is that? Or do you have another origin or rights in mind? OK, my wrong. It's 3/4 in the US. Still, only 2/3 in Russia (and quite a number of other first world countries). I stand corrected. 3/4 or 2/3, doesn't sound like unanimity to me. Wanna try unanimity? Go to a UN Security Council meeting :)

Still, it is a stretch long taken by successive legislators both internationally and domestically (which does imply they did not see it as that much of a stretch). Let's start from the bottom up. The rationale of the relevant Constitution court judgement (N 151-O-O of January 19, 2010) justified its position, among other considerations, by its protecting the family as a social institution, its values and the role it plays in the upbringing and development of children. The laws in question are to protect the family in its traditional meaning which, according to the Constitutional Court is one of the values “securing the continuous succession of generations and enabling the preservation and development of our multinational people†that, accordingly, requires the relevant protection by the State. In the last paragraph of the same Item the Court explains that they are to prohibit deliberate attempts to make children form “perverted notions of traditional and non-traditional conjugal relations being socially equivalentâ€. In other words, one of the aims of this law is to protect the family in its child care and upbringing aspect. You may already see why the legislator does not see it as 'a question of the mechanics of the family', but rather as a question of preserving the very foundation of the society. You really cannot successfully argue that a person in entirely autonomous and that its sexuality does not affect other individuals or the state in general. A question of mechanics inevitably translates into a question of preservation and development of the whole society. A question of morals inevitably translates into a question of rights of others (in the words of the ECtHR, '[t]here is a natural link between protection of morals and protection of the rights of others'). Right of the child in particular - both in terms of being free from propaganda and in terms of the fulfilment of his or her right to a family (and not a cohabitation or a same-sex union). The question of existential survival is to me rather obvious. Russia is officially (UN) experiencing a demographic crisis. If you think that is entirely irrelevant to existential survival, think again (does. for example, the impending collapse of the welfare society sound relevant to the existence of the nation state?) If you thing individual sexual behaviour is irrelevant to that, think again (does, for example, the documented heightened risk of HIV or STDs among MSM sound relevant to national birth rate?). And, by the way, homosexuals do not procreate all that well. So in 20 years a 30-year homosexual will be a happy little drain on the welfare budget. Need I really explain why exactly? I believe you are wrong. Writing UDHR no-one really imagined that a time will come when they will have to clarify what the family in its traditional sense actually is.

Does it, indeed? I wouldn't call two-thirds majority 'a near unanimous public and political support', for example. That's the requirement for amending the US Constitution (with state constitutions, if I'm not mistake, sometimes requiring a simple majority). I bet less than one third of Russians are homosexuals. By your logic, whatever the amendment, they will just have to suck it up, and that will be OK. That is, of course, if a) there is any change to speak of, and b) that said change does by its nature necessitate a constitutional amendment. Incidentally, in case of the ban on homosexual propaganda among minors, neither is, I believe, true. So, to pick up where I left a couple of lines above: I was under the impression (for real, not as a rhetorical device) that for something to require amending the constitution it must explicitly clash with something already in it. Like really denying someone his rights and freedoms. Bringing back slavery, for example. Had the US Constitution not tacitly allowed slavery, Lincoln would not have to make his vision a constitutional amendment. So, instead of the 13th Amendment, you would have had something like the Northwest Ordinance. By the same token, the only way the Russian law would have required a constitutional amendment (and a two-thirds majority) is if the Constitution of the Russian Federation provided for the right to conduct said propaganda in the first place. Otherwise lower level legislation would suffice. A regional law, for example - as, in fact, was the case. Not sure about sexuality being a right... There is a right for men and women of age to marry and form a family, which is a rather different beast. But whatever the right, I did explain that in can only be exercised when not threatening the pubic health, public morals, and public safety human rights documents keep talking about.

It is rather obvious that an analogy, by it very nature, deals with two essentially separate (and therefore different) objects. Isn't it a spectacular failure of logic that someone would focus on the difference between the objects in question, while ignoring the very purpose of the analogy - that is, similarity of relationship? I might have illustrated this particular point by giving the classic hand:palm sole:foot example, but I really fear I will get "The main difference between a hand and a homosexual is..." as a reply :( The point of my analogies (that homosexuality is as inherently incompatible with traditional morals the above-mentioned phenomena are, respectively) seems entirely lost on you. Still, even if your attempt at underlining the difference between homosexuality and everything else I mentioned is entirely misguided, you are nevertheless making a number of incorrect assumptions I might want to point out. Might have been true, had cohabitation been an entirely private affair that no-one outside the bedroom knew of or cared about. However, in a society, the matter of any two individuals' marital (or quasi-marital) relationships is far from private. As evidenced by the very existence of family legislation from antiquity to modernity. Like it or not, every state thinks it its business to define how a family should look like. The reasons for it being explicitly stated in UDHR Article 16(3) - because it is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. It stands to reason that something fundamental to a society cannot be outside its jurisdiction. A matter of existential survival, frankly. So, a society might well decide that a particular form of relationships directly related to the matter of the family is not conducive to the well-being of this its fundamental unit. And (as has been shown above) will be entirely within its right to protect it (including though necessary and justified limitations on personal freedoms). It just so happens that the Russian society think this is the case, and homosexual 'families' are undermining families proper. And not without reason, I believe. So is being homosexually active. 200%+ increase in HIV infections is quite a severe health problem, in my book. It is hardly in my power to 'construct' a moral tradition; are you implying that I have just made it up and, in fact, in Russia none exists? Still, I really like your analogy because it, in fact, serves to illustrate a rather different point. Do bear with me: The thing is, if you strip this subject of morality (as some of my interlocutors seem to think is only proper and 'objective'), Apartheid was perfectly legal. In fact, if there are no laws of morality transcending national jurisdictions, any law, however discriminatory, is legal, including those of the historical Union of South Africa. Because each state is sovereign. South Africa was not a democracy, therefore, in a morality-free discourse, its white minority had every legal right to assert its will over the black majority - by virtue of having passed Apartheid laws. The thing is, way back in the 20th century some people decided that, because there are laws of morality transcending national jurisdictions, said nations could, theoretically, legally acknowledge some of these laws, therefore binding themselves with a common transnational framework of law. Re-read the Preamble to the UNHDR and see that a common moral background was the very raison d'etre for its existence. Because, just like with any other seminal legal document (up to and, probably, beyond the US Declaration of Independence), its authors were positive they were not inventing something new, but rather explicating a pre-existing legal and moral reality. Anyway, having signed the Declaration, the States parties recognized that, to be properly legal, their domestic laws must comply with the Declaration and the subsequent international legal documents. Technically, unjustified discrimination became illegal because these states expressly prohibited it. 'Constructing some moral tradition and then saying we should ban 'propaganda' for equal rights' became illegal because these states expressly upheld equal rights (the exercise of which, of course, is subject to limitation as per Article 29(3) of the said Declaration). The thing is, the Union of South Africa did not. It was not a signatory to UDHR. It was not legally bound by its norms. Therefore technically (that is, as if morals did not exist or have any relevance to this matter) any conflict between its domestic legislation and UDHR provisions did not make it illegal. So, to answer your implicit question 'does my logic make Apartheid legal, too?', one must either bring morality back into equation - or be forced to acknowledge that, technically, it does. Luckily, I do not have to be forced into the second option and readily admit that Apartheid was illegal by virtue of its laws being contrary to natural law (that's God's law for the onthologically inclined), transcending national jurisdictions and ultimately 'powering' the UDHR and the likes of it. And thanks for not falling asleep at the keyboard, by the way.

I would have offered you to (as the phase goes) 'judge for yourself', but given that I made quite an effort to dissuade elwaps from playing 'judge' (and a higher court judge at that, second-guessing and interpreting the laws in question), that would really seem out of place :-) So, give it a thoughtful read instead: Supreme Court of the Russian Federation judgement 1-APG12-11, August 15, 2012. That hardly sounds like a novelty, especially given the fact that the same term 'propaganda' is routinely used in international legal documents (e.g. in Art. 20 of ICCPR, Art. 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Art. 6(3) of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, Art. 19(1) of the European Social Charter (revised) and Art. 19(2)(d) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, etc.). It follows reason that 'propaganda of homosexuality', being a specific case of the former, cannot have a definition wider than the general term itself. Indeed: Ibid. Moreover, Ibid. Given that, I daresay it would take a certain degree of wilful blindness (or a very specific agenda) to continue to claim that this law 'forces homosexuals to live with a secret that, when uncovered, leads to prison and/or physical harm' and 'is destroying the life of millions of people'. That, being my personal opinion, you are more than welcome to judge :) I readily concede that people can hold morals in varying degrees of regard (to put it charitably). Which returns us to the question of simple majority vs unanimity (a subject no-one here, sadly, cared to pick up), because, realistically, there is little space for 'moral pluralism' in any given society. A society simply cannot exist without a single overarching moral framework to which every citizen has to subscribe (even if begrudgingly). To enforce which, even by limiting other people's freedoms, is, to quote ECHR, 'necessary <...> in a democratic society', and not at all a sign of a theocracy (whatever the naive views expressed elsewhere in this thread). Which, incidentally, returns us to yet another question: the limits of pluralism and tolerance (a subject several people attempted to pick up, but, sadly, only to mistakenly pick apart my analogies, instead of addressing the question itself). Can incompatible individual morals really be 'tolerated' in a 'pluralistic' way? Anyway. Even if you are personally uncomfortable with the whole morality justification, there is still a whole subject of protection of public health (and that of the young in particular) to be addressed in almost entirely moral-free fashion.

Sorry, I really did not see it. Can't find it, would you repeat, please? Not unless I missed you proving that a ban on propaganda of homosexuality among minors truly is 'a heavy restriction of the lives of millions of people' first (kind of prerequisite to any subsequent discussion; can't expect people applying reason to figments of someone's imagination). Man, I wish I could insert Sherlock's exasperated "Do your research!" moji from Skype here! Are you talking about modern day Russia or are you talking about some imaginary Fascist country with million of closet homosexuals facing imminent incarceration? Because I, for the life of me, can see no overlap between the two. Leads to prison if uncovered, you say? The law in question makes homosexual propaganda among minors a civil offence punishable by a fine of... oh my God! a whole 5000 roubles (try repeating that with an Austin Powers accent)! That's $70 for the civilized West and the price of a two-way train ticket from Moscow to St.Petersburg for the 'Neanderthals and animals' themselves. Wait, no prison term? And no sodomy offence since Soviet times? Even a wee administrative one? Yeah, you're right, that's no fun at all :( Forced to live in secret, you say? Next time you're in Moscow, Google a gay bar if you fancy it. Is 11 enough for a discriminating patron? (That, by the way, was "eleven" with a Scottish accent. Tell me if I failed.) Leads to physical harm, you say? That is, indeed, unfortunate. And unlawful. And is actually a criminal offence. And will get whoever attacked you a fine 10 times the sum you'd get for trying to convince schoolboys to try an alternative sex life in the first place. And a mandatory 2 year sentence if also classified as a hate crime (and/or involved weapons of any kind). So, I think that's enough overblown victimhood rhetoric for one subject, OK? I was responding to an implicit thesis that tolerance is the answer to any difference of opinions/tastes/worldviews/whatever. 'Not if they are inherently incompatible' was my objection. Of which Sharia law vs generalised Western law being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of a state, female genital mutilation vs Western ideas of female dignity being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of proper female sexuality and cultural role, polygamy vs monogamy being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of matrimony, paedophilia vs restriction of all forms of underage sex being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of sexual morals, and so on. Instead of single-mindedly shouting Freedom! tolerance, do try and understand why you can't always have it in equal measures. Some things are by their very nature not meant to be tolerated, they are meant to undermine the status quo. Which does, of course, tell you something about the status quo in the first place. For example, that it is exclusive (hence the incompatibility with anything else). Still, I would argue that some concepts are exclusive by nature. Monogamy was one of the examples. Exclusivity doesn't mean being wrong or 'should be replaced with an inclusive alternative'. So - yes, that is as valid a comparison as any ('shall I compare thee to a summer's day', anyone?). And, by the way, rarely can homosexuality be simply a sexual preference. Fancying prostitutes might. Perhaps. Lobbying for prostitution to be decriminalised is, obviously, much more than that. Fancying boys might. Perhaps (if it's merely fancying). Lobbying for paedophilia to be recognised as a new norm is, obviously, much more than that. You see? The moment you take your sexual preferences outside your bedroom and into the sphere of policy, it stops being a mere preference. And there is even scope enough for it to become an ideology, which some activists clearly do embrace. Do try and realise that whatever example I choose, the nature of the discussion (why a state decides to ban something) dictates that it can only be something considered illegal. You really can't argue the case for banning/unbanning by comparing things with flowers and bees. So please don't act as if I'm purposefully trying to portrait homosexuals as criminals/terrorists/whatever. That is really rather cheap. Nope. That was simply a quotation proper.

Wasn't I? I was under the impression that I did. Let's go through it once more (quoting from memory, so sorry if I misattribute something): Russia bans homosexual propaganda on the grounds of, among other things, the protection of public morals (and those of the young in particular). Elwaps claims I have to prove that it is contrary to public morals. I say to 'prove' it one doesn't need a logical construction, only a public survey (which does show extensive public support for the measure and a general view of the subject in question being contrary to interviewees' morals). I also note that in passing a judgement on whether something is against public morals, the state, in the language of the ECHR, is simply doing what it is best placed to do (better than an outside judge, and way better than an outside layman which elwaps is). So, what was it you were trying to say, again? Firstly, the analogy was based on similarity of intent (protection of children), not similarity of the nature of threat (moral well-being is obviously not the same as physical well-being, through successive legislators seem to think they are equally important and even somewhat interconnected). Secondly, the analogy referred to a wide range of measures aimed at protecting children. Since elwaps claimed that one of these measures 'made the majority feel it has the right to threaten, beat up and sometimes even kill homosexuals', the point of the analogy was to show that, by the same token, he should claim that similar laws make people think they can threaten, beat up and even kill smokers, drinkers, bad-mouthed people, etc., too. Lastly, I believe the assumption you are inferring is, in fact, more true than you think. I don't know about your particular country, but in Russia what is termed MSM (men who have sex with men) are more than 20 times more likely to contract HIV than an average heterosexual male. That alone, I think, would have been enough to make the state regard active homosexuality as an 'occupation' dangerous enough to restrict minors from engaging in.

Still you think it is acceptable or even desirable to ban them from public. No I do not. By the way, there is a world of difference between a ban on a certain behaviour (propaganda of something) and a ban on appearing in public (house arrest?). An analogy (and, please, keep your head cool and don't rush in confusing similarity of whatever nature with equation): theoretically, Stormont, or even Whitehall can ban parades by one section of the Northern Ireland society. That does not mean the relevant community is banned from public, does it? This is a flat non argument. Tolerance towards homosexuals does not mean telling your children that it doesn’t matter who their parents are, this is just dumb. Why, thank you indeed for such a generous assessment of my intellectual faculties! If it really were my faculties you had in mind, and not an interpretation of my argument that you constructed in your head (which seems more like the case). You see, I wasn't speaking about denying my parenthood at all, I was speaking about denying my fatherhood. The importance - or even irreplaceability - of which I am acutely aware of, given that my son is precisely in that age when he begins to really appreciate his father's role. Anyway, I am, sufficiently aware of the logical and, more importantly, practical reality that you cannot have 'tolerance' towards a 'worldview' (though I'd rather call it an ideology accompanying the sexual persuasion) incompatible with the family in its traditional sense without actually undermining the latter. And that was the point of my example, however imperfect it might have been (I may have skipped a few logical steps, which made it rather difficult to follow; it's just that these steps were already well documented in Nordic countries, where you can, for example, have your children taken into foster care because of "Christian indoctrination", only to be later transferred into a homosexual foster 'family' - all thanks to 'tolerance' of homosexuality). Another example: if you have a 'worldview' incompatible with your legal system (say, an interpretation of Islam rejecting Western law and dedicated to replacing it with Sharia law), you can't really have 'tolerance' towards it without undermining your legal system. As I have said, pluralism, tolerance and 'live and let live' can only go so far. There are lots of ideas and persuasions tolerance doesn't apply to. It's just they are not nearly as vocal in painting the horrific suffering of their particular 'millions of victims of intolerance'. Some did, though, try to be vocal (even if without the 'millions' part). Spare a thought for the pro-paedophile groups. One (one of them) might say they only tried to promote tolerance towards their particular sexual persuasion. What an intolerant thing to do was to ban them! And in the name of the protection of morals. How could the state ruin the lives of millions of paedophiles! The nerve! The subjectivity! The shame! The answer to the loaded question is, obviously, no. Does the alleged opinion behind the question bear any relation to mine? Likewise, no. Does the dramatic hyperbola have any reality behind it? Ditto. Why don't you first prove that a law on homosexual propaganda is destroying the life of millions, and then go on questioning others whether it is worth it. Posting links to Youtube videos is hardly a proof of anything. I can probably post you a video showing that Cameron's anti-EU or anti-benefit for immigrants stance is destroying the life of millions of Syrians or whatever. Which makes it neither the truth nor a proof. …but leaves open to interpretation what exactly is regarded as propaganda. No, it does not. Pardon me for pointing it out, but neither your ignorance in the matter nor your allegations, fears or interpretations have any relevance to the scope and nature of the legislation under discussion. What does is the interpretation by the relevant legal authorities. Given that the laws in question are, technically, regional legislation, that authority would be, say, the Constitutional or the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Would you care to listen to the way it interpreted, defined, and limited the term 'homosexual propaganda' (thereby establishing the actual law of the land, not the idea you have in your head)? Or would you rather prefer to stick to your imagination in which this (and, I presume, any) law is, doubtless, intentionally left open to as wide interpretation as possible so that it could inspire people to threaten and kill homosexuals? I don't believe I really know the answer unless you say so definitely.

Nor does it justify threatening, beating up, or, indeed, killing homosexuals. Are you talking about justification in a) a judicial sense or in b) a moral sense? Cause, if a) that's a red herring (as he clearly was not suggesting it in that sense) It is a). The 'right to threaten, beat up and sometimes even kill homosexuals', alleged to have come from the legislation in question, is contrary to the law of the land, so you can't really use that as an argument unless you prove that it was the intention of the legislator for it to be so through either direct encouragement or wilful negligence. Would you, for example, argue that a ban on polygamy is not only unjustly discriminatory for the Muslim 'minority' in Russia, but is also making a large part of the minority feel it has the right to threaten, beat up, and sometimes even kill Muslims? Would you argue that a ban on FGM is not only unjustly discriminatory for the African/East Asian minority in Great Britain, but also making a large part of the minority feel it has the right to threaten, beat up, and sometimes even kill immigrants? And, for that matter, would you argue that any anti-immigrant law advocated by David Cameron is, in fact, encouraging violence against immigrants - and at the same time accuse me of shifting the burden of proof when asking you to prove that the alleged violence is, indeed, caused by the law in question? You realise that there are lots of of practices favoured by some minority communities, yet outlawed by the state on the ground of morals? Would you attempt to tie each to an alleged surge of violence against that particular community? That does not make an analogy strictly false - as long as it was aimed at highlighting the fact that the ban on homosexual propaganda among minors is but one of the set of laws designed to protect children from information harmful to their development (physical, moral, etc.). So, there are laws protecting children from exposure to violent scenes, too. Ditto for smoking, alcohol consumption, developmentally inappropriate sex scenes, and so forth. All of which share a common logic (endorsed by UNCRC, no less) that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" (not the same rationale in terms of the exact nature of harm presented). Keep in mind that this logic is consistently applied to both physical well-being and morals, however subjective you personally might hold them. Applied not exclusively by Russia, but by other signatories to ECHR, for example. It's just that Russia uses its 'margin of appreciation' to apply this principle in its own way, according to its particular culture. Some other country's public morals might be perfectly compatible with whatever is the talk of the day. That does not mean others have no right and duty to oppose it. As for 'entirely different grounds', the difference is, in effect, bridged by the same rights of the child legislation which bundles protection of morals and protection of health into one question. Not to mention that the state does have a healthcare rationale in its opposition to homosexual propaganda.