Russia...Politics...Beliefs.

[elenhil]

 

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.

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.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

 

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.

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):

 

prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality does not mean preventing the citizens from disseminating information on the subject of homosexuality of general or neutral character or holding duly authorised public events, including open public debates about sexual minorities' social status

<..>

the disputed norms do not restrict the right of the child himself to receive information, including about homosexuality, when called for by the needs of the child, according to his age.

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.

 

 

I see a small problem with that logic. Just how much is unanimity? And does this logic really apply to regular democratic process? After all, doesn't a liberal administration with a, say, 51% majority mandate impose its subjective opinions and policies upon the conservative 49%? And that is if the representation is proportional. With first past the post elections the numbers can be even crazier.

If you don't see that as something inherently undemocratic, then you shouldn't really object to a state upholding the moral views of some 86% of the population (which, to my knowledge, is the extent to which the laws under question are enjoying public support in Russia).

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.

Edited December 19, 2015 by elenhil

[elenhil]

 

This is a behavior that I attribute to elenhil as I previously mentioned ... taking bits out of general context to disingenuously illustrate a subjective viewpoint. Although, others of the opposing viewpoint have also done so (not me!) ... but most of these do not seem as disingenuously cherry-picked (but that is only my opinion).

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.

[Boris]

First, I'm not that Boris.

Second, you underestimate the freedom of speech in Russia. Your prejudice comes from the inability to get the information first-hand, because it's in Russian.

Third, I can write a long post about real state of affairs, but I will not. Because you have your opinion set in stone, so why bother? You will just declare it a propaganda.

 

But I don't really care about what you think of us.

[Octopuss]

First, I'm not that Boris.

Second, you underestimate the freedom of speech in Russia. Your prejudice comes from the inability to get the information first-hand, because it's in Russian.

Third, I can write a long post about real state of affairs, but I will not. Because you have your opinion set in stone, so why bother? You will just declare it a propaganda.

 

But I don't really care about what you think of us.

Why did you bother registering and posting this then?

[Boris]

Why, to state my opinion.

[elenhil]

First, I'm not that Boris.

Second, you underestimate the freedom of speech in Russia. Your prejudice comes from the inability to get the information first-hand, because it's in Russian.

Third, I can write a long post about real state of affairs, but I will not. Because you have your opinion set in stone, so why bother? You will just declare it a propaganda.

 

But I don't really care about what you think of us.

I will have to disagree. Had you read this discussion thoroughly, you'd have noticed that I consistently helped to breach the language barrier by providing that first-hand information, including the precise wording of laws in question (something I am yet to see elsewhere on the Internet). Hence, the barrier can hardly be a real factor.

 

And I will probably have to agree with my opponents in that you're wasting your time on 'opinionating'. An opinion without the reasons behind it is the most useless thing on the Internet (and, by the way, 'all the Cretians are liars' ;) ).

[Boris]

I did read the first and last posts of your opponents. You haven't changed their stance.

The real waste of my time would be typing a long and useless post.

[elenhil]

I did read the first and last posts of your opponents. You haven't changed their stance.

Come on. You seriously think my couple of dozen leisurely forum posts can have undone a couple of decades' worth of media propaganda and make people 'convert, repent, and burn their heretical writings' (as was the golden standard of debating back in the Church Fathers' days?) LOL! 

 

The real waste of my time would be typing a long and useless post.

 

OK, then. Stating your bare opinion was a smaller waster of time, then :)

[TechAngel85]

Guys, keep it civil please.

[MonoAccipiter]

Come on. You seriously think my couple of dozen leisurely forum posts can have undone a couple of decades' worth of media propaganda and make people 'convert, repent, and burn their heretical writings' (as was the golden standard of debating back in the Church Fathers' days?) LOL! 

 

OK, then. Stating your bare opinion was a smaller waster of time, then :)

For someone so eager to point out logical fallacies in the arguments of others, you sure like your suppression techniques.

[Rebel47]

This seemed to have derailed fast eh, is this what passes for banter in this place

[z929669]

Yes, it really is banter, isn't it? This topic just died out, as I think we all agreed to disagree ... there are plenty more though ;)

[elenhil]

Well, I'd be so bold as to claim that such an agreement would have required all parties to have a clear understanding of the matter they are disagreeing about, which I am far from sure is the case.

 

Because, otherwise, why on Middle-earth was I, for example, having you, Z, argue that social change ought to be introduced through constitutional amendments ONLY (and not even a simple amendment, as per the degree of entrenchment the Russian constitution has, with its 2/3 majority requirement, but a super amendment with a legally unheard-of near unanimous public support clause)?

 

That may betray a mentality shaped by a certain Constitution of the United States of America (which is not super relevant for those of us who are subject to other constitutions, even unwritten ones, if you can imagine such a thing!), but an actual understanding of what the Russian child protection laws are about, what the status quo in the Russian society is, and what constitutes a change thereof? Not in the slightest.

 

Because, quite simply, for a deeply socially conservative society, it is precisely the 'LGBT rights' agenda pushed (quite vigorously at times) by international pressure groups that constitutes social change, not the constitutionally and culturally entrenched opposition to it.

 

Frankly, I might (with not a small degree of success, I believe) argue that for a nation of heavy smokers a ban on smoking in public (part of a larger anti-tobacco agenda) is a greater social change and an attempt at social engineering than that particular extension of the comprehensive child protection agenda being enacted in Russia (of which a ban on homosexual propaganda to children is but a small part, along with a ban on harmful kinds of advertising aimed at children, harmful kinds of films aimed at children, and many others).

Edited March 3, 2016 by elenhil

[MonoAccipiter]

This is why I quietly backed out the conversation a few pages back, as I simply had no interest in discussing what law X said about case Y, since I have absolutely no knowledge about the subject.