Hey people.
So, I'm bringing a very delicate debate right now, again. So, for those who belongs to either side of fanaticism-if you're an atheist that believes you're smart just by being an atheist, and if you think that all reliigous people are dumb and dserve punishment for what happened in the bast, or if you are a religious fanatic who states God is real as a proven fact and thinks that whoever disagrees should burn in hell, or whatever- I ask you, politely, to leave.
You have a blind belief and your opinion is therefore completely useless, irrelevant, and even harmful for the debate. I don't want this thread closed because of you, so, please leave now.
The thread is not exactly the idea that title gives, so, you should read before posting things that aren't related to the point of the discussion.
Part 1, the spoiler right below this, is an introduction, you might wanna take a look, because you MIGHT get lost if you don't read it. If you're quick, you might be able to get the point without it. Either way, I reccommend that you read it.
And, now, this is my point. I was just talking about respect, and a video, but why, how does it relate to the title? Because it's pretty ironic how the same people that claims that religious people attempt to use dictatorship rules, or that religious people don't deserve respect, the same people, are those who defend "equality" for gay people by trying to give them privileges, by trying to make them untouchable. The usual blind moralism I describe here: (read only if you don't understand what I'm saying
So, these people say that everybody is free to do or think what they want, and everybody must be respected, no prejudice, etc. Not only that, but they b*tch, and they overreact even more when someone says anything negative about an homossexual, even though it wasn't any disrespect. Then they claim it's homophobia(even though it wasn't, and they can't even prove it), and try to get the person arrested or even harmed.
Basically, they're not any better than the fanatics. This also sounds like a dictatorship.
And then, when it's about religious people, all the fight for respect, for equality, it ends, and the speach becomes completely different. Then everybody can insult everybody, they can disrespect, because that's "part of democracy".
You can obviously see the pathetic double standard that these blind moralists apply. Yet, there they are, standing in public as "heroes" as "liberals", fighting the prejudice and figthing the conservative people. How, they're really good.
But it's not so heroic if you look to the other side, is it? They stand against prejudice and discrimination, but yet, they do try, and ocasionally succed, in segregating a group from the rest and taking some essencial rights from the same group(such as the right to be respected). They stand by equality, but they are full of double standards.
So, YOU, blind moralist, you're not a hero. You are not helping the world. You're just as dumb as any fanatic, and you're doing the same thing they do. You're the opposite side of the same coin. You're just screwing things even more, and one day, it will blow up in your face.
Your BS might work with some people, but it won't work with me, or with any smart people. There are citizens, way, way smarter than me, and they disprove your stupid ideology in a blink of an eye. These people, smart people, if or when they stand against you, then you'll see what is a hero.
Thanks for the attention.
So, I'm bringing a very delicate debate right now, again. So, for those who belongs to either side of fanaticism-if you're an atheist that believes you're smart just by being an atheist, and if you think that all reliigous people are dumb and dserve punishment for what happened in the bast, or if you are a religious fanatic who states God is real as a proven fact and thinks that whoever disagrees should burn in hell, or whatever- I ask you, politely, to leave.
You have a blind belief and your opinion is therefore completely useless, irrelevant, and even harmful for the debate. I don't want this thread closed because of you, so, please leave now.
The thread is not exactly the idea that title gives, so, you should read before posting things that aren't related to the point of the discussion.
Part 1, the spoiler right below this, is an introduction, you might wanna take a look, because you MIGHT get lost if you don't read it. If you're quick, you might be able to get the point without it. Either way, I reccommend that you read it.
There was a video, released in christimas of 2013, made by a famous brazilian comedy group of youtube. I din't actually watch so achieve my own conclusions, but I heard about it.
It seems that religious people got really upset or even angry because of the video, claiming that it was disrespectful, an insult, etc.
Well, based on previous vides made by the same group, I could say it's likely. But based on how fanatics some people can be, I could say that it's also an overreaction, that it was just a joke, or even a criticism, but not an actual disrespect. I won't post the video, because it's in portuguese, no subtitles, and finding otu if it was or not disrespectful is not the point.
However, that's not my point. I googled about it, and I found something very interesting, some comments, some blogs, etc. Some of them claimed that this is a democracy, so everybody can say what they want, and everybody is subject to criticism, and that trying to stop this would be a dictatorship.
Well, they do stand almost 100% correct. But they did forget one thing: All citizens must be respected, religious people included. This is a law, and one that doesn't belong to the dictatorship, but to democracy itself. However, it does limit your freedom. And that is necessary, for society to work, people must have a limit for what they can do, otherwise, chaos would rise. We would kill whoever we wanted for any reason, we would insult and harm many people, we would destroy what we don't like, because we're humans.
The true freedom is not the one in which you can do whatever the f*ck you want. The true freedom is the one in which your rights are limited by the rights of the others, so that you can't harm any citizen, and therefore, harm life in society.
People seem to forget this basic rule when it's about religious people nowadays, for some reason. But whatever belief you have, or lack of it, it doesn't give you the right to disrespect any religion, or religious person, or an agnostic, or an atheist.
It seems that religious people got really upset or even angry because of the video, claiming that it was disrespectful, an insult, etc.
Well, based on previous vides made by the same group, I could say it's likely. But based on how fanatics some people can be, I could say that it's also an overreaction, that it was just a joke, or even a criticism, but not an actual disrespect. I won't post the video, because it's in portuguese, no subtitles, and finding otu if it was or not disrespectful is not the point.
However, that's not my point. I googled about it, and I found something very interesting, some comments, some blogs, etc. Some of them claimed that this is a democracy, so everybody can say what they want, and everybody is subject to criticism, and that trying to stop this would be a dictatorship.
Well, they do stand almost 100% correct. But they did forget one thing: All citizens must be respected, religious people included. This is a law, and one that doesn't belong to the dictatorship, but to democracy itself. However, it does limit your freedom. And that is necessary, for society to work, people must have a limit for what they can do, otherwise, chaos would rise. We would kill whoever we wanted for any reason, we would insult and harm many people, we would destroy what we don't like, because we're humans.
The true freedom is not the one in which you can do whatever the f*ck you want. The true freedom is the one in which your rights are limited by the rights of the others, so that you can't harm any citizen, and therefore, harm life in society.
People seem to forget this basic rule when it's about religious people nowadays, for some reason. But whatever belief you have, or lack of it, it doesn't give you the right to disrespect any religion, or religious person, or an agnostic, or an atheist.
And, now, this is my point. I was just talking about respect, and a video, but why, how does it relate to the title? Because it's pretty ironic how the same people that claims that religious people attempt to use dictatorship rules, or that religious people don't deserve respect, the same people, are those who defend "equality" for gay people by trying to give them privileges, by trying to make them untouchable. The usual blind moralism I describe here: (read only if you don't understand what I'm saying
blind moralists, who claim to be fighting for the homossexuals to have the same rights, make stupid mistakes such as the trial to give the homossexuals privileges. which for some reason they call equality. What is the evidence that these people try to fight for these privileges?
The evidences are that they try to make the homossexuals untouchable: People must agree with homossexualism(to respect and to accept is different from to agree, as with the first 2. people will acknowledge and respect the different characteristics, ideas and behaviors, but they wom't necessarily agree with it.), people must never critize homossexualism or homossexuals, homossexuals must have rights to secure these, having more rights than the other citizens.
These measures are obviously a trial to put the homossexuals above the other citizens, as not only they will have more rights, but also the rest of the population will lose part of their freedom of speech(they cannot disagree with homossexualism and they can't critize it). Of course, now I'll give exemples:
Situation 1:
"-man, I'm proud to be homossexual
-way to go, dude"
vs
"-man, I'm proud to be white/straight
- YOU HOMOPHOBIC DOUCHEBAG"
Situation 2:
*Straight couple making out on the streets, in a very intense way*
"- Man, look at them, they're almost eating each other, so disrespectful
- Indeed. It's ok to kiss outside, but they're almost having ***, this bothers other people. Get a room"
vs
*Homossexual couple making out on the streets, in a very intense way*
"- Man, look at them, they're almost eating each other, so disrespectful. It's ok to kiss outside, but they're almost having ***, this bothers other people. Get a room
- JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY, RIGHT??!!!
- No, it's the way...
- YOU HOMOPHOBIC DOUCHEBAG!!!"
The proud person of the situation 1 was wrongly considered homophobic.To be proud of a characteristc of yours is not a prejudice, is not a trial of discrimination against the "oposite group". It doesn't fit the concepts I've mentioned.
The same happened in situation 2: The guy was bothered not because the couple was homossexual, but it was because their way of kissing. As the guy explained, it bothers people, so, as much as we're free, our freedom is limited to the point that we can't make things disrespectful to other citizens. So, it was not homophobia(this, howevever, is not to takeaway people's rights. As everybody must be equaly respect, you can't disrespect people if you want respect, this is the limitation of freedom, which brings stability). However, many blind moralists wrongly consider these situations as homophobic situations.
Their excuse is that homossexuals are the opressed minority, therefore they need these measures. This is an obvious mistake: Giving privileges will only increase the cicle of hatred between the 2 groups, as the group without the privileges will feel "opressed", "decreased", and they will blaim the group with privileges. This,as I said, will increase the cicle of hatred, which will cause many fights. This is why it is a mistake, and it is a mistake that was made in the past, as in the past, some groups of society used to have many more rights than the population. This caused many of the fights and revolutions, which, different for the current actions, were movements to achieve equality of rights. The current behavior is the one in which there is a trial to give the privileges as some form of revenge or compensation, which, as I explained, will only cause more problems.
The evidences are that they try to make the homossexuals untouchable: People must agree with homossexualism(to respect and to accept is different from to agree, as with the first 2. people will acknowledge and respect the different characteristics, ideas and behaviors, but they wom't necessarily agree with it.), people must never critize homossexualism or homossexuals, homossexuals must have rights to secure these, having more rights than the other citizens.
These measures are obviously a trial to put the homossexuals above the other citizens, as not only they will have more rights, but also the rest of the population will lose part of their freedom of speech(they cannot disagree with homossexualism and they can't critize it). Of course, now I'll give exemples:
Situation 1:
"-man, I'm proud to be homossexual
-way to go, dude"
vs
"-man, I'm proud to be white/straight
- YOU HOMOPHOBIC DOUCHEBAG"
Situation 2:
*Straight couple making out on the streets, in a very intense way*
"- Man, look at them, they're almost eating each other, so disrespectful
- Indeed. It's ok to kiss outside, but they're almost having ***, this bothers other people. Get a room"
vs
*Homossexual couple making out on the streets, in a very intense way*
"- Man, look at them, they're almost eating each other, so disrespectful. It's ok to kiss outside, but they're almost having ***, this bothers other people. Get a room
- JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY, RIGHT??!!!
- No, it's the way...
- YOU HOMOPHOBIC DOUCHEBAG!!!"
The proud person of the situation 1 was wrongly considered homophobic.To be proud of a characteristc of yours is not a prejudice, is not a trial of discrimination against the "oposite group". It doesn't fit the concepts I've mentioned.
The same happened in situation 2: The guy was bothered not because the couple was homossexual, but it was because their way of kissing. As the guy explained, it bothers people, so, as much as we're free, our freedom is limited to the point that we can't make things disrespectful to other citizens. So, it was not homophobia(this, howevever, is not to takeaway people's rights. As everybody must be equaly respect, you can't disrespect people if you want respect, this is the limitation of freedom, which brings stability). However, many blind moralists wrongly consider these situations as homophobic situations.
Their excuse is that homossexuals are the opressed minority, therefore they need these measures. This is an obvious mistake: Giving privileges will only increase the cicle of hatred between the 2 groups, as the group without the privileges will feel "opressed", "decreased", and they will blaim the group with privileges. This,as I said, will increase the cicle of hatred, which will cause many fights. This is why it is a mistake, and it is a mistake that was made in the past, as in the past, some groups of society used to have many more rights than the population. This caused many of the fights and revolutions, which, different for the current actions, were movements to achieve equality of rights. The current behavior is the one in which there is a trial to give the privileges as some form of revenge or compensation, which, as I explained, will only cause more problems.
So, these people say that everybody is free to do or think what they want, and everybody must be respected, no prejudice, etc. Not only that, but they b*tch, and they overreact even more when someone says anything negative about an homossexual, even though it wasn't any disrespect. Then they claim it's homophobia(even though it wasn't, and they can't even prove it), and try to get the person arrested or even harmed.
Basically, they're not any better than the fanatics. This also sounds like a dictatorship.
And then, when it's about religious people, all the fight for respect, for equality, it ends, and the speach becomes completely different. Then everybody can insult everybody, they can disrespect, because that's "part of democracy".
You can obviously see the pathetic double standard that these blind moralists apply. Yet, there they are, standing in public as "heroes" as "liberals", fighting the prejudice and figthing the conservative people. How, they're really good.
But it's not so heroic if you look to the other side, is it? They stand against prejudice and discrimination, but yet, they do try, and ocasionally succed, in segregating a group from the rest and taking some essencial rights from the same group(such as the right to be respected). They stand by equality, but they are full of double standards.
So, YOU, blind moralist, you're not a hero. You are not helping the world. You're just as dumb as any fanatic, and you're doing the same thing they do. You're the opposite side of the same coin. You're just screwing things even more, and one day, it will blow up in your face.
Your BS might work with some people, but it won't work with me, or with any smart people. There are citizens, way, way smarter than me, and they disprove your stupid ideology in a blink of an eye. These people, smart people, if or when they stand against you, then you'll see what is a hero.
Thanks for the attention.
