awww... crap.. i clicked on the edit button instead of the quote button.
my apologies. I have put the appropriate text back that I could via my email.
Non-sequiter. Iran didn't kill these kids to save itself from danger. You'll say i'm being over literal. I say you're being obtuse.
Without getting into issues of consent in totalitarian regimes, i think it's pretty clear that a people can consent to a government that is not moral. Castro came to power under popular support, yet jails political prisoners on a routine basis. Pinochet had great support, yet order the dissapearings/murders of thousands. Robespierre had the support of the masses right until he lost his own head. I won't Godwin this further than i have to (i've been trying quite hard to avoid that material as examples), but i think you get the point. That the masses consent to evil does not make evil good. The individual is always, always responsible for wither dissenting or assenting to the world around them. That individual either accepts responsbility for what is happnening, or that person acts to disrupt that pattern.
Then call a spade a spade. State for the record that you believe that killing a person for their orientation is wrong, and should be considered a human rights abuse.
This is one of the few threads i've ever started. I've posted on threads relating to the Darfur, Iraq, Afganistan, prisoner treatment in context of the war on terror, prison rape in US prisons, mental health issues, sexual assault, and that's off the top of my head. One vein? Yeah. Human rights.
Yes. One category of human beings who do not live without fear of violence is queer persons in many nations and regions. These people have been historically overlooked, and there is not enough action taking place to remedy the situation. It's like saying that people shouldn't get shot. If Bob, Steve, Jill and Jane are standing around, and Mr. Evil comes and puts a gun to Steve's head, do you shout:
A) Shooting people in general is wrong!
or
B) Don't shoot Steve!
I'm shouting the equivalent of B, not becuase i want Bob, Jill and Jane to get capped, but because a gun is currently aimed a group. There is other advocacy to be done, and i do my best to work in concert with that, and to support it. But this happens to be an issue where i can find my energy and passion. I hope to support others who have that same energy and passion for their causes. I start where i can because to do everything is too much. Maybe someone who is empowered by queer rights campaigning will become the most brilliant advocate ever for third world development, and end world poverty. Maybe someone will find inspiration in this work and do work for the rights of women, or providing health care in wor torn places.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert F. Kennedy
It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
|
That is my philosophy. I do what i can because i'm in a position to do it. I do what i can, hoping that others join me. I do what i can because it is what i can do. Please don't tell me when i do something to save the world that i'm not saving all of it. I know that. I grieve what i cannot do, and i do what i can.
I won't assume you just reposted this. Was there material that you mean to respond to there?
If someone liked to beat their kid because they were red headed...
This is all thread jack. This is the only place where you and i have a dissent on a legal basis, and it's already been hashed out to hell and back. If you want to bring up the original thread, that's fine. But despite our strong feelings on this particular issue, this is concealing a broader point. Forest for the trees if you will. beyond this specific issue, our conception of the legal rights of individuals are largely the same. yet, the accusation persists that i'm all about taking rights away. A disagreement on the definition of child abuse is not a philosophy of the removal of indivual rights. You are willing to suspend parental rights for what you believe to be child abuse, no? So am i. We simply disagree on what child abuse consists of.
/ end thread jack. if we need to discuss this particular issue more, please move this to other thread.