Qatar is Anti-Gay but they gets a Football World Cup?
- Thread starter Neferpitou
- Start date
Whether they both have capital punishment or not isnt a point that shows they cant see homosexuals as "evil." The death penalty comes after the prosecution/defence of a case and and after they have made the law involved in it. It only proves they have that punishment in common.Neferpitou said:
In government, the laws are changed when suggestions/complaints are made and a new law is considered and passed, then enforced. If that fails, there's either a revolution, a vote to turn over the government or it doesn't stand. In a soveignty, you complain to the enforcer or royalty itself, they think about it and then pass/decline it. If it fails, then you dont get the chance to vote for a new leader - you have to force it to change by overthrowing them.
This is a business decision made by an business group. FIFA are not a government, and it is their freedom to deal with anyone they'd like. (Although if they help fund criminals, NATO may get involved...) Just because they are situated in a western society, it doesn't necessarily have to trade with only western countries. So, yes. We can have a World Cup in the countries in the said places. It's not a great business choice, but it is indeed possible.
Indeed, if Qatar wants to join the western governmental movement (democracy), they should learn to be more accepting, especially with Human Rights. It's a view that works both ways, as if the democratic states want Qatar to join, they must persuade them to join.
Just because the owners of these associations like to dress up like one, doesnt mean they look like government officials.
mangaman74
Akatsuki
kupocake said:
I don't think it is a case of whether it is legal - in most sports it is more a case of whether people come out about it.
As far as I remember Justin Fashanu is the only footballer to have done so (and it was towards the end of his career that he came out).
Most players wouldn't come out in case it affected their career.
ayase
State Alchemist
Y' see, now this is progress. If we get all the progressive Qataris to move over here and deport all our bigots to Qatar, then I'd be all up for nuking the place.Ryo Chan said:funny enough, Gray and Keys have been offered a job by Al Jazira, who are based in QuatarJayme said:
Neferpitou
Stand User
sic vita est said:
You may feel strongly against the Death Penalty but you can't say for 100% its not a necessary evil. If someone close to you was murdered would you truly satisfied with the person behind it been given a life sentence?
Looking at case like Saddam Hussein. If he was still in Prison instead of been executed, how would a life Sentence be retribution for all the crime he committed? Theirs no telling whether his stay in prison would be too comfortable or overly harsh.
No matter how strongly you feel against the Death Penalty you have to accept there is at least some case for it. While their no really good reason to persecute someone for being gay.
Chaz said:
I know it's decision made by business Group and while financially it could push football into middle east. It does leaves a bad taste mouth where football is an effective tool in Social upheaval. Just look at Let's Kick Racism Out Of Football campaign as testament to that fact.
We have wait and see in the future to see If Qatar improves it's social attitudes. Maybe the pressure to hold a best as possible tournament may push them to have more liberal attitudes in future.
ayase said:Y' see, now this is progress. If we get all the progressive Qataris to move over here and deport all our bigots to Qatar, then I'd be all up for nuking the place.Ryo Chan said:funny enough, Gray and Keys have been offered a job by Al Jazira, who are based in QuatarJayme said:
but then u'd end up paying an extra £5 per ltr of fuel just to pay for the biohazard suits for them to get oil to us
ayase
State Alchemist
How about "because everything's f*cking subjective?" That a good enough reason? You cant say anything for certain! Your opinion is that Saddam Hussein deserved the death penalty. Someone could equally believe that he did the right thing and that his victims deserved what they got. Who's right? Who's wrong? No-one. As human beings, you are both equally entitled to your subjective opinions.Neferpitou said:
This is why the whole idea of things like country and society just suck arse. No one is right or wrong about anything. We're all just flawed people who interpret things in our own individual way. We've allowed other flawed people to rule over us but really, there are no laws for us to abide by because every one of us is an example of the most evolved species on the planet. The only thing qualified to tell any of us whether we are right or wrong would be a more evolved species; something which either does not exist or we have not yet encountered. Even then, we would have to assume that each member of such a species would *also* hold a different opinion, thereby rendering any or their ideas of right or wrong equally subjective to ours!
There's no point trying to justify yourself, or your views or actions to others. After all, our "leaders" who are to blame for making a people created equal unequal certainly don't.
Neferpitou
Stand User
ayase said:
I never said out right Saddam Hussein should get the Death Penalty, simply suggesting certain cases may lean toward as execution as course of action.
An more evolved species wouldn't be qualified tell us if our action are right or wrong. As we human; the most evolved species on Earth treat less evolved creatures here with contempt. Destroying their habitat and pushing their species to brink of extinction. Some cases simply treating animal as mass produced source of food. Who is to say an higher level of lifeforms wouldn't treat us in the same way?
A lot of subjects like the Death Penalty have arguments for and against, so there no simply answer to which is the right way to go.
But there's simply no good argument to persecute people simply for being gay. It's like suggesting their good case why slavery, rape or child molestation should be acceptable practice. There simply isn't one, as causing suffer to others is kinda obvious thing not to do.
ayase
State Alchemist
There's no good argument which you are convinced by. There's no good argument for these things which I am convinced by either. But plenty of people must see a good argument, otherwise there would be no-one in the world who hated gays, practised slavery or molested children.Neferpitou said:
People don't listen to reason. People are not rational. People believe what they want to believe. Short of killing them all, there's no way to stop them from behaving in a way you don't understand. Sure, it's not nice that there is hatred against gays, slavery and paedophilia in the world. You or I might not understand why people do these things, but I do understand that they will be here forever whether I like it or not.
Neferpitou
Stand User
ayase said:
The problem is their point of view against gay's a considered point of view or just purely based on religious text which they fear not following in case repercussions?
For the people who practice slavery, rape or child molestation. Do they actual believe what they do is right or is it they simply can't control the desires involved with it? There would be cases where people would believe what they are doing is correct but majority are simply doing it to fulfill a money or sexual desires.
While its unlikely certain point views which hurt other people will be 100% eliminated in the future. At least society has moved forward to make them less common than they where in the past.
CitizenGeek
Guild Member
ayase, your "everything is subjective!" shtick is worthless. Is there any harm in homosexuality? No. Does the criminalization of homosexuality cause suffering and harms to society? Yes (society remains intolerant, homosexuals themselves are tortured and tormented by the self-hatred brought on by such laws, AIDS rates are higher among gays in countries where it is illegal because gay men are less likely to use condoms in those countries, etc.). Is there, therefore, any good reason to criminalise homosexuality? No.
It's simple logic.
Are you actually serious? Being gay is fine, as long as you hide it, risking punishment if you don't hide it well enough? And then you have the gall to say objecting to the criminalization and persecution of homosexuals is an example of liberal intolerance or something. I'm genuinely appalled and surprised at your rhetoric. The reason homosexuality is illegal in Qatar is because of religious bigotry. Why is that okay?
It's simple logic.
ilmaestro said:
Are you actually serious? Being gay is fine, as long as you hide it, risking punishment if you don't hide it well enough? And then you have the gall to say objecting to the criminalization and persecution of homosexuals is an example of liberal intolerance or something. I'm genuinely appalled and surprised at your rhetoric. The reason homosexuality is illegal in Qatar is because of religious bigotry. Why is that okay?
Soubi-Hurt
Student Council President
On the subject of football Fifa Will only have it in countries they can getway with paying no tax whilst opperating there. So if you were one of the people who wanted britian to win the white elephant you were a fool.
.
And i don't think we should be forcing our Cultural views on other nations they should change theirs when their nation is ready not when we think they should is very empirisltic we don't want other cultures force onto us so why should we force others to be like us.
.
And i don't think we should be forcing our Cultural views on other nations they should change theirs when their nation is ready not when we think they should is very empirisltic we don't want other cultures force onto us so why should we force others to be like us.
ayase
State Alchemist
I'm trying to steer clear of commenting on specific conflicts now, because what's more interesting to me is the nature of conflict itself. The question that matters to me is not "Why do people think it's okay/not okay for others to be gay?" or "Why do people want to punish those who are gay?" or even "Why do people want to punish those who think it's not okay to be gay?" All ever more complex diversions from the real question people are asking, which is:
"Why do people come into conflict? About anything?"
Conflict being a result of differences of opinion. Why do people have differences of opinion? Opinion is a result of life experience + genetics, which means that people are doomed to do terrible things to one another as long as they continue to come into contact. And that will not change, as even with the best education in the world we could never make everyone's life experience and genetics the same; therefore we can never make everyone hold the same opinions (or even respect each other's). Unless of course we are to go down the "Brave New World" path (and make life even more devoid of meaning, if indeed that's possible) we have to accept that people are going to suffer from each other's negative influence if we want to continue to be both individuals and social animals; the only alternative is to isolate ourselves to prevent conflict. I'm undecided as to which I think is best. Is society worth the suffering it causes? I'd be inclined to say no. But then I'd also be inclined to say that the thought of never having any contact with another person again would be equally distressing.
So to sum up, not just in personal relationships, but in society at large: Ladies and gentlemen, we are all hedgehogs.
"Why do people come into conflict? About anything?"
Conflict being a result of differences of opinion. Why do people have differences of opinion? Opinion is a result of life experience + genetics, which means that people are doomed to do terrible things to one another as long as they continue to come into contact. And that will not change, as even with the best education in the world we could never make everyone's life experience and genetics the same; therefore we can never make everyone hold the same opinions (or even respect each other's). Unless of course we are to go down the "Brave New World" path (and make life even more devoid of meaning, if indeed that's possible) we have to accept that people are going to suffer from each other's negative influence if we want to continue to be both individuals and social animals; the only alternative is to isolate ourselves to prevent conflict. I'm undecided as to which I think is best. Is society worth the suffering it causes? I'd be inclined to say no. But then I'd also be inclined to say that the thought of never having any contact with another person again would be equally distressing.
So to sum up, not just in personal relationships, but in society at large: Ladies and gentlemen, we are all hedgehogs.
Err... wasn't the question: "Is it ok for a constitutionally homophobic sport to pick an oil rich homophobic nation to host its future shindig?"ayase said:
Look, I know this is clearly a troll from me, but* the above post is one of the most bizarrely bamboozling rambles I've ever seen. And three days of silence kind of speak to that, even with the glacial posting speed of this forum.
Not that I get the devil's advocacy of this thread anyway. People are denouncing 'liberal' views with ultra-quasi-liberal ones about people's right to hold any ******** belief they've never had the personal agency to think up for themselves. It's a lovely little debate club, but all I can hear is the words 'no, that's ignorant...' in a Mr Jefferson falsetto echoing in my vacant skull.
* For other uses of this tactic see: 'Some of my best friends are black, but...'
Soubi-Hurt
Student Council President
THe liberals who force equality tend to be the least tollarant. They only force it for political idelogical means. Usally the Fabians and the Commies who want to enslave us all.
Eco fachcists seems to be the new force in ideology who want the enslave us all in fuel poverty.
Eco fachcists seems to be the new force in ideology who want the enslave us all in fuel poverty.