China causes outrage by banning online content of 'abnormal' homosexual relationships

[unfilteredJW]

Never said it justified anything, just think there are bigger problems in the world with regards to homophobia, than China being China and censoring what its populace views online.

- - - Updated - - -



One is actually killing people, when are we gonna get a thread on that?

So, we need to have a 1 for 1 thread just to meet some arbitrary bar you've decreed is needed for x issue to be discussed? Or do we need more than 1 per each? What's your criteria?

Is that really what you are asking for, or is this just you being disingenuous? I think I know the answer.

[Machismo]

One is killing people, one is blocking content online.

I know that I care about one of them vastly more than I do about the other one.

Are you unable to care about both? I don't know about you, but I can oppose both, you should try it. I can deal with them as two separate topics, and not use one to deflect from the other. So, let's make it simple:

Do you oppose the actions by the Chinese government to inhibit freedom of speech by trying to block such content?

[MikeBogina]

Are you unable to care about both? I don't know about you, but I can oppose both, you should try it. I can deal with them as two separate topics, and not use one to deflect from the other. So, let's make it simple:

Do you oppose the actions by the Chinese government to inhibit freedom of speech by trying to block such content?

I don't think liberals care about both. Any criticism of islam's treatment of gays is met with racism and bigotry from the liberals.

I condemn all mistreatment of gays for being gay, in any fashion. But it hurts my brain when I see barely any liberals carrying about the actual lives of gays overseas, because they want to respect those countries extremely radical right traditions @_@

[Deleted]

Hopefully, one would fare about freedoms for everyone. Otherwise, you don't really give a shit about freedom at all.

What freedom?

“No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviours, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.”

I guess such bans are pretty standard in every first world country.

[Machismo]

I don't think liberals care about both. Any criticism of islam's treatment of gays is met with racism and bigotry from the liberals.

I condemn all mistreatment of gays for being gay, in any fashion. But it hurts my brain when I see barely any liberals carrying about the actual lives of gays overseas, because they want to respect those countries extremely radical right traditions @_@

Then those people are idiots. Oppression should be condemned. However, one should not simply project the actions of one individual or entity onto others.

- - - Updated - - -

What freedom?

“No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviours, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.”

I guess such bans are pretty standard in every first world country.

This goes past most other countries, which is the point. They do not have freedom of speech, which you are clearly demonstrating.

[Sky High]

Yet another in a long list of stupid, ineffectual and pointless policies to come out of China. What a shite country to live in.

[Deleted]

This goes past most other countries, which is the point. They do not have freedom of speech, which you are clearly demonstrating.

Ah, sorry my bad - so not being allowed to show:

“No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviours, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.”

is taking away from your freedom of speech? This argument is beyond retarded and actually grossly negligent.

[Machismo]

Ah, sorry my bad - so not being allowed to show:

“No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviours, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.”

is taking away from your freedom of speech? This argument is beyond retarded and actually grossly negligent.

Yes, yes it is taking away from freedom of speech. You are literally demonstrating exactly in what ways they are limiting the freedom of speech. You are proving my point for me.

[Themius]

Considering you're only allowed on these forums to support homosexuality..

Let's all talk about the evil of suppressing homosexuality..

Evil law !!! Just evil.

The evil of joy being bigots oh my the horror!!!

[Mittens]

One is killing people, one is blocking content online.

I know that I care about one of them vastly more than I do about the other one.

You are free to open a thread about it.

[Insofin]

Hopefully, one would fare about freedoms for everyone. Otherwise, you don't really give a shit about freedom at all.

I guess we should then ask for freedom for, polygamical, incestuous, zoophiliac or even "worse things" relationships (like the ones in arab countries where men marry 9-12y/o girls)? Because, after all, they're also human beings and deserve their freedom, don't they?

Be careful of what you ask. If you set no limits, the world would rapidly degenerate. The problem is setting the limits, as it's a SUBJECTIVE decision. Some people will agree to LGBT-based relationships, others won't; some will agree to polygamical relationships, others won't...

[Machismo]

I guess we should then ask for freedom for, polygamical, incestuous, zoophiliac or even "worse things" relationships (like the ones in arab countries where men marry 9-12y/o girls)? Because, after all, they're also human beings and deserve their freedom, don't they?

Be careful of what you ask. If you set no limits, the world would rapidly degenerate. The problem is setting the limits, as it's a SUBJECTIVE decision. Some people will agree to LGBT-based relationships, others won't; some will agree to polygamical relationships, others won't...

Well, any relationship that does not cause harm... absolutely. I believe people should be free to do whatever they like, so long as they are not harming others. Some of the relationships you mention do cause harm, some do not.

This is a ban from even showing such types of relationships, which goes even further than banning the actual practice.

[Puremallace]

China is so strange I swear. Unlike Japan they do not use that dumbass censor box but then they do stuff like this.

[Insofin]

Well, any relationship that does not cause harm... absolutely. I believe people should be free to do whatever they like, so long as they are not harming others. Some of the relationships you mention do cause harm, some do not.

This is a ban from even showing such types of relationships, which goes even further than banning the actual practice.

I guess you were referring to kid marriage or zoophilia, which are the most controversial ones. I'm no expert, but as far as I know, none of them have been proven to cause harm for any of the involved parties. It's not like the spanish "corridas" where a torero stabs spikes into a bull's back until it dies, or a domestic/genre violence case.

But leaving that aside, let's go back to the topic here. How come is showing those relationships going further than banning the practice? I mean, isn't it worse to ban the practice than to show it?

[Machismo]

I guess you were referring to kid marriage or zoophilia, which are the most controversial ones. I'm no expert, but as far as I know, none of them have been proven to cause harm for any of the involved parties. It's not like the spanish "corridas" where a torero stabs spikes into a bull's back until it dies, or a domestic/genre violence case.

But leaving that aside, let's go back to the topic here. How come is showing those relationships going further than banning the practice? I mean, isn't it worse to ban the practice than to show it?

Well, since most children to not have the mental faculties to properly agree to something they don't even understand, the harm is clear. I'll go ahead and side with science on that one.

Now, if you want to demonstrate voluntary behavior on the part of the animal, be my guest.

It goes further, because one is not even allowed to show an illegal activity on television. Those practices are also banned, and this simply takes it a step further, by also limiting speech about the subject.

[Insofin]

Well, since most children to not have the mental faculties to properly agree to something they don't even understand, the harm is clear. I'll go ahead and side with science on that one.

Now, if you want to demonstrate voluntary behavior on the part of the animal, be my guest.

It goes further, because one is not even allowed to show an illegal activity on television. Those practices are also banned, and this simply takes it a step further, by also limiting speech about the subject.

And how do you define the mental faculties? Because I don't know you, but I was taught about the reproductive system and sexuality since I was 10 in school (to the point that every year the school would invite a sexuality expert to explain how a condoms, pleasure and other things worked), so I was actually pretty conscious about what it meant.
Also, science also says that girls and boys start being sexually active at age 11 (but there's a big variety, with cases starting at late 9 early 10, or others starting at 16), causing a lot of cases of sexually active kids being under marrying age (causing the definition of lolita to appear). Therefore, there's also scientifict facts that could backup those practices.

And regarding the animal behavior... I think if a dog humps on a human, it's because he wants, doesn't it?

But I'd like to stop here. I'm realizing I sound like I actually defend those practices... And just in case, I'll be clear: I don't.

About the "going further" part. Ok, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant it was worse than forbidding the practice, not that it was giving one more turn to the topic.

[Zeth Hawkins]

You are free to open a thread about it.

While true, the thread would swiftly be locked.

[Better]

Hopefully, one would fare about freedoms for everyone. Otherwise, you don't really give a shit about freedom at all.

I personally think free speech should exist for everyone, but that hasn't ever existed in China as far as I know. There are loads of places that don't have basic freedoms that I believe in, but there's little I can do about it. I don't know why this event, even though I disagree with china's decision, would be the tipping point where you'd suddenly realize China denies it's people freedoms we enjoy in the west.

[Darkeon]

Because for once Tennisace is correct?

That was exactly what I was thinking.

When you get rightfully corrected by Tennisace, you know you messed up bad!

[Mittens]

There are people who don't like homosexuals just because they are homosexuals. Just like someone doesn't like me because hey, it's me. Everyone has a right to say what they are against as long as it's civilized.

That's quite different than the government officially endorsing the position of them being freaks. That just furthers the homophobia in China.