Qatar is Anti-Gay but they gets a Football World Cup?

[ayase]

I'm just sick of these pointless debates no-one is ever going to win. It would make no difference to the situation at hand even if we did reach a consensus, which we won't. I was merely pointing out how this is the case with anything anyone decides to concern themselves with, and how really it would probably be better for everyone if we all just shut up and left each other alone... AUKN forumites, Gays, Qataris, whatever.

I suppose I'm putting forward the idea that extrospection itself actually leads to suffering for yourself and others. Which is pretty much relevant to everything, so this is as good a place as any to put it.

 

[Neferpitou]

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.

England not winning the World Cup bid has nothing really to do whats being discussed here.

Even with the taxes, FIFA would make a lot more money with England as the host than a lot of other countries. Simply as they can charge insane tickets prices. This can be seen with ticket as low as £10 for World Cup Final in South Africa.

http://www.worldcup2010southafrica.com/ ... residents/

The cheapest ticket for Champion League final to soon to be held in Wembley are £176 each. World Cup Final in England would sell for a lot more than that.

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.

Just copy and pasted what I said earlier, as I can't bothered to repeat myself:

The point being raised is Qatar should not hold the tournament. Not that their Anti-Gay law has to be removed and must be removed by force. Essentially taking the argument needless over the top. No one forcing them to change there ways.

If they so desire they can live in their own bubble and keep whatever laws they want. But If Qatar what enter the western society by hosting international events they have to accept the most basic western sensibilities. Otherwise where do you stop. Should the next world cup be held in North Korea, Zimbabwe or certain Middle eastern state where women are given less rights then?

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.

Are you honest telling us you would rather live in a world of essentially Anarchy then?

Society is not perfect, granted but it is still a work in progress which is steadily improving over in time for the entire population of the world. People take for granted the gifts society has reward them be it a degree of Law & Order or basic Welfare. I would rather take the little amount Law & Order/Welfare against living in a survival of fittest struggle against the harshness of nature on my own.

 

[ayase]

Are you honest telling us you would rather live in a world of essentially Anarchy then?

Society is not perfect, granted but it is still a work in progress which is steadily improving over in time for the entire population of the world. People take for granted the gifts society has reward them be it a degree of Law & Order or basic Welfare. I would rather take the little amount Law & Order/Welfare against living in a survival of fittest struggle against the harshness of nature on my own.

I'm saying I would rather live in a world of individual non-interventionism and self determination. A world where no-one is attacked for their opinions or facets of their character because they keep these things to themselves instead of trying to force them on others. Everyone seems to have this desire to harangue others with their beliefs, and I'm finding it an increasingly bizarre aspect of human nature.

Anarchy is the closest we are going to get to this, probably. But it's still not ideal as people would continue to interfere with each other; just in a different, more direct manner. Not necessarily a worse one, mind you. And the struggle against nature is nothing compared to the struggle against bureaucracy, government, wage slavery, other god-damn people, etc. The only natural way to deal with either is to fashion yourself a primitive spear.

 

[Neferpitou]

Are you honest telling us you would rather live in a world of essentially Anarchy then?

Society is not perfect, granted but it is still a work in progress which is steadily improving over in time for the entire population of the world. People take for granted the gifts society has reward them be it a degree of Law & Order or basic Welfare. I would rather take the little amount Law & Order/Welfare against living in a survival of fittest struggle against the harshness of nature on my own.

I'm saying I would rather live in a world of individual non-interventionism and self determination. A world where no-one is attacked for their opinions or facets of their character because they keep these things to themselves instead of trying to force them on others. Everyone seems to have this desire to harangue others with their beliefs, and I'm finding it an increasingly bizarre aspect of human nature.

Anarchy is the closest we are going to get to this, probably. But it's still not ideal as people would continue to interfere with each other; just in a different, more direct manner. Not necessarily a worse one, mind you. And the struggle against nature is nothing compared to the struggle against bureaucracy, government, wage slavery, other god-damn people, etc. The only natural way to deal with either is to fashion yourself a primitive spear.

But can you really let people do want they want, If their actions are simply going to hurt other people? It's can't be acceptable to let people simply go round hurting, persecuting or killing other humans. You need some form order and law, while it may have loopholes or over zealot policing. It's better than letting people do whatever they ever desire no matter consequence.

The beauty of the modern day struggles is it your choice to be involved or not. The vast majority of people in the world don't even bother to be involved and simply lets their politicians or other groups to debate it. You can living blissfully in ignorance if you so wish and it will lead to no repercussions.

The reason why their little struggle against nature now is because of all the work done though pasts millenniums through society and people interacting which each other. A world with no interaction would mean human would be the same as another animal on the planet: struggling against nature. Nature is incredibly cruel thing with most animal struggling to survive, constantly living in fear of their short lives coming to end before they should.

 

[Soubi-Hurt]

I think ayase would be in favour of Libertearianism where people are all free but dosen't desend into anrchary.

You'd have what you want without some little **** preying on the weak like they do with many other polilical systems, like soicalisim.

 

[ayase]

The beauty of the modern day struggles is it your choice to be involved or not. The vast majority of people in the world don't even bother to be involved and simply lets their politicians or other groups to debate it. You can living blissfully in ignorance if you so wish and it will lead to no repercussions.

But that's not what people do, is it? They think they have a right to decide things for other people which are nothing to do with them (because democracy says: you do) and as a result of this they vote. And then everybody has to abide by the laws of whoever has been manipulative, corrupt and vague enough to be voted in. Blissful ignorance? Ignorant, self-righteous, naive servitude, perhaps.

I think ayase would be in favour of Libertearianism where people are all free but dosen't desend into anrchary.

I used to think so but I've even fallen out with Libertarianism as it still gives an unfair advantage to those who are already wealthy. I think probably Levelling, immediately followed by Libertarianism, then repeated once every hundred years. That way people are also freed from inequality by way of privilege. But even that wouldn't prevent at least one generation from benefiting / suffering from their progenitors choices.

 

[Neferpitou]

The beauty of the modern day struggles is it your choice to be involved or not. The vast majority of people in the world don't even bother to be involved and simply lets their politicians or other groups to debate it. You can living blissfully in ignorance if you so wish and it will lead to no repercussions.

But that's not what people do, is it? They think they have a right to decide things for other people which are nothing to do with them (because democracy says: you do) and as a result of this they vote. And then everybody has to abide by the laws of whoever has been manipulative, corrupt and vague enough to be voted in. Blissful ignorance? Ignorant, self-righteous, naive servitude, perhaps.

Not ideal granted but it way better than trying to survive on your own in the wild. While a lot of things done through Democracy are not always for the benefit of its people. At least we receive massive benefits because of the constant work of government and society have done through the centuries. Be it having Pensions, Social Welfare, NHS, Police Force, Fire Brigrade, Prisons, Education, etc.

I think ayase would be in favour of Libertearianism where people are all free but dosen't desend into anrchary.

I used to think so but I've even fallen out with Libertarianism as it still gives an unfair advantage to those who are already wealthy. I think probably Levelling, immediately followed by Libertarianism, then repeated once every hundred years. That way people are also freed from inequality by way of privilege. But even that wouldn't prevent at least one generation from benefiting / suffering from their progenitors choices.

A system you are suggesting would only lead to conflict every 100 years, as wealthy people will not give away their fortunes without a fight. If you want an equal society, the only way I could see it happening would be to do away with money and the family unit system altogether.

Parents are always going favor their own children over others. So when the best opportunities come round they will favor their own even when they know others are more deserving or better suited. People with more money will always going to have unfair advantage to them in life. Also money has a habit to cause people to exploited for personal greed, causing less equality.

But a world with no family unit or money is unfeasible for the time being.


If you are so for Libertarianism why do condone a country like Qatar enforce a law that's its illegal to be Gay. It essentially going against your view that society shouldn't tell what people should do, which clearly Qatar are doing in this instant.

 

[ayase]

If you are so for Libertarianism why do condone a country like Qatar enforce a law that's its illegal to be Gay. It essentially going against your view that society shouldn't tell what people should do, which clearly Qatar are doing in this instant.

But why is the Qatari government are able to persecute gays in the way they do? Because they are the government. If they were merely private citizens, they would only be able to persecute people as much as the average individual can. That is to say they could hold a private belief, make that belief public, or even go so far as to actually physically attack people who are gay. That would still cause suffering, but given that that kind of thing goes on in the UK it would cause nowhere near as much suffering as a powerful organisation like a government can inflict.

Everyone has beliefs and no matter how distasteful you find them, they are not likely to change. The idea of trying to change people is the thing I find utterly futile about this whole situation. Before you say anything further about "not wanting them to change" that is clearly what you want to happen. If you didn't want them to change, you wouldn't want to punish them for their current beliefs by withholding things from them. My personal stance is that people are welcome to believe whatever they like, but that their ability to inflict these beliefs on anyone else should be minimised; part of achieving that would need to be minimisation of government control.

I'm not pro the Qatari government. I'm not pro any government. I am pro people being allowed to hold whatever crazy beliefs they like, because trying to control people's thoughts puts their individual sovereignty under threat. If people aren't allowed to think for themselves, there's little point in them existing at all. Do we want our beliefs to be shaped and manipulated so that there is no conflict and we serve our rulers perfectly in some well-oiled global machine? Even if it were possible to do so, I would rather live in a passionate, dangerous world of love and hate than one of safe, dull consensus. I can think of nothing more horrible.

 

[Neferpitou]

Everyone has beliefs and no matter how distasteful you find them, they are not likely to change. The idea of trying to change people is the thing I find utterly futile about this whole situation. Before you say anything further about "not wanting them to change" that is clearly what you want to happen. If you didn't want them to change, you wouldn't want to punish them for their current beliefs by withholding things from them. My personal stance is that people are welcome to believe whatever they like, but that their ability to inflict these beliefs on anyone else should be minimised; part of achieving that would need to be minimisation of government control.

I don't particular care what Law's Qatar instates. As If this was about wanting countries to change why don't you see me arguing against Countries like North Korea for example when there form of persecution is even greater than Qatar.

As I said before they can live in their own bubble If they want to, but that has to change somewhat when holding international events. It's not about punishing countries but reward the country who deserve it most. How can you reward a World Cup to Qatar when the other choices have more Democracy, more liberal attitudes and have less oppression. It's slap in the face of any form of progress in the world and to the other countries involved.

I'm not pro the Qatari government. I'm not pro any government. I am pro people being allowed to hold whatever crazy beliefs they like, because trying to control people's thoughts puts their individual sovereignty under threat. If people aren't allowed to think for themselves, there's little point in them existing at all. Do we want our beliefs to be shaped and manipulated so that there is no conflict and we serve our rulers perfectly in some well-oiled global machine? Even if it were possible to do so, I would rather live in a passionate, dangerous world of love and hate than one of safe, dull consensus. I can think of nothing more horrible.

It frankly very easily talk about rather living in existence of danger than dull consensus when they themselves live a life of safety. The world can never be some fantasy Shonen Manga when you can do what you want and succeed. Its very nasty places where billion of people would gladly swap places for our safe and dull existence in the UK.

Government are essential and while you disagree over the power they may wield it has to better than letting people simply run a muck. You need some form of control or should all the murders, Rapist and nasty people run around free as they believe they should be able to?

 

[ayase]

It frankly very easily talk about rather living in existence of danger than dull consensus when they themselves live a life of safety. The world can never be some fantasy Shonen Manga when you can do what you want and succeed. Its very nasty places where billion of people would gladly swap places for our safe and dull existence in the UK.

Government are essential and while you disagree over the power they may wield it has to better than letting people simply run a muck. You need some form of control or should all the murders, Rapist and nasty people run around free as they believe they should be able to?

I love this belief that the most powerful people in an anarchistic society would automatically be the worst people; that people will automatically prey on those weaker than them. Y'know what? Most people don't do that, and they react with negativity to those who do. This idea of anarchy denies the existence of people who are willing to stand up for themselves or others. It also ignores the existence of firearms, which if carried universally would make everybody exactly as strong as the next person. In a society with no government, people wouldn't simply allow themselves to be raped and murdered, so the idea of people who do these things "running around free" is an absolute fantasy. Far more likely a situation is that they would be strung from the nearest lamp post by the friends and relatives of their victims pretty quickly.

The real problem in any kind of society (anarchy or democracy) is people organising themselves into groups with the intention of affecting the lives of people outside of these groups. Membership societies you can choose to belong to and are free to leave at any time, who seek no influence over those not part of the group are not problematic in this way: Monasteries, on-line communities and paid for subscription services (as long as they are not obligatory) are all examples of positive groups. Conversely political parties, lobbying groups, evangelical religions and biased media organisations are negative groups as they actively seek to influence and change the behaviour and beliefs of people who are not part of their organisation.

If I was to write the one commandment it would go something like this:
Thou shalt not organise with intent to influence those not already subscribing to the views of the organisation in question.

Suck on that Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I've done in one what you couldn't even manage in ten. The only problem now is who enforces it...

 

[Neferpitou]

I love this belief that the most powerful people in an anarchistic society would automatically be the worst people; that people will automatically prey on those weaker than them. Y'know what? Most people don't do that, and they react with negativity to those who do. This idea of anarchy denies the existence of people who are willing to stand up for themselves or others. It also ignores the existence of firearms, which if carried universally would make everybody exactly as strong as the next person. In a society with no government, people wouldn't simply allow themselves to be raped and murdered, so the idea of people who do these things "running around free" is an absolute fantasy. Far more likely a situation is that they would be strung from the nearest lamp post by the friends and relatives of their victims pretty quickly.

The phrase "Survival of the fittest" come to mind. Humans are not that mentally that superiors to that of the animal kingdom and nature. Majority of us are constantly are fighting the urges to reproduce, food, power (money with humans) or fulfill our violent tendencies. Nature is a constant a battle of survival where the strongest succeed while the weak die. Humans without society and governments would revert back to that. That's plainly easy to see how much more violent our past history was without the advancements through governments and society of today. How would you stop people who crave power not rising up in anarchy society as well?

It's not as easy to say people wouldn't simply allow themselves to be raped and murdered. It's that was the case then rapes or murders wouldn't occur. Without a justice system to investigate how would you know who responsible for said murder, rape or crime? At least with law's created there a deterrent and way to stop people re-fending with prison terms.

Also fear plays a role, as if some committing these crimes is very tough and powerful person, who would stand up to and risk their life to take them on? People talk a good fight but it's not as easy to act out on their words when your own survival is on the line.

The real problem in any kind of society (anarchy or democracy) is people organising themselves into groups with the intention of affecting the lives of people outside of these groups. Membership societies you can choose to belong to and are free to leave at any time, who seek no influence over those not part of the group are not problematic in this way: Monasteries, on-line communities and paid for subscription services (as long as they are not obligatory) are all examples of positive groups. Conversely political parties, lobbying groups, evangelical religions and biased media organisations are negative groups as they actively seek to influence and change the behaviour and beliefs of people who are not part of their organisation.

On-line communities are still run by admin and mods who have unbreakable say what it's allowed or even exclude people If they don't follow their point of view. There always a form influence on any forum from the people who run it.


Anyway this is going to be my last post on the topic. The problem is you can't have a point view that you believe people should have the right to have any belief they want and not have what they believe dictated to them by the government. Then starting argue its OK for an government to oppose and punish people for their beliefs.