Wow, however approved that poll has got to be flat out retarded.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/16/bbc-africa-have-your-say
Quote
BBC news website asks users: 'Should homosexuals face execution?'
Talkboard post seeks readers' views ahead of interactive World Service programme Africa Have Your Say
The BBC today asked users of its news website "Should homosexuals face execution?" on a talkboard discussion for a World Service programme for African listeners.
Posted on a BBC News premoderated talkboard, the thread was designed to provoke discussion ahead of the latest edition of interactive World Service programme Africa Have Your Say.
"Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question, but this is the reality behind an anti-homosexuality bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death," the post said.
The talkboard post asked users to send in their views to the programme, which goes out on the World Service and is also available online.
"Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual 'offences' be monitored?," the post added.
Premoderated posts included one from Chris, Guildford, posted at 8.59am, which attracted 51 recommendations of support. He wrote: "Totally agree. Ought to be imposed in the UK too, asap. Bring back some respectable family values. Why do we have to suffer 'gay pride' festivals? Would I be allowed to organise a 'straight pride' festival? No, thought as much!! If homosexuality is natural, as we are forced to believe, how can they sustain the species? I suggest all gays are put on a remote island somewhere and left for a generation - after which, theoretically there should be none left!"
Another, from Aaron in Freetown, said: "Bravo to the Ugandans for this wise decision, a bright step in eliminating this menace from your society. We hope other African nations will also follow your bold step."
The Africa Have Your Say programme aired at 4pm today. By 5.30pm, the headline of the discussion had been changed to "Should Uganda debate gay execution?".
Liliane Landor, the BBC World Service acting head of Africa region, defended the radio programme and talkboard post, saying it allowed gays and lesbians from Uganda, whose voices have never been heard in the UK, to talk with dignity about the impact the legislation would have on their lives.
The show also included the opinion of those who supported the anti-homosexual legislation, including religious leaders, she said. "The programme was a dignified exchange between people who have differing beliefs," Landor added.
Landor said that the World Service realised that the headline on the talkboard was blunt, but it was carefully put in context. "We wanted to frame the question starkly, in order to reflect the stark reality of the Ugandan bill," she added.
The BBC Pride board, composed of gay and lesbian staff at the corporation, lobbied the World Service to change the headline and close discussion "to minimise negative reflection on the BBC".
Eric Joyce, the Labour MP for Falkirk, labelled the post "more than offensive". "It's completely unacceptable. And it's mainly British people replying," he said on Twitter.
The talkboard post is understood to have been written by a female member of the BBC World Service Africa bureau.
The World Service, which broadcasts in 32 languages on TV, radio and the web, is part of BBC Global News, but funded by the Foreign Office.
I love BBC have your say. It is like EUOT, only stupider.
Why? It's a good question.
Or it could be, if not for the propensity for people not to take stuff like that seriously and just troll the poll.
Bear with me.
If any sizeable percentage of respondents answer "yes" then perhaps it might give someone reason to increase the effort to teach people not to hate fags.
But I can see where in this day and age of hyper sensitivity it might not be appropriate since it will offend someone.
I have a question I like better though.
Why are you so afraid of people speaking their minds?
And since I know what the response will be, given that this is Languish: if what people have to say is stupid, surely there is no reason to fear it.
And since I know what the response will be, given that this is Languish: do you really think that you alone know what is best for everyone else?
And since I know what the response will be, given that this is Languish: Neil, please don't reply unless you have something other than your schtick to add. :P
Where do I vote? :D
I think Slargos is a Norwegian spy. Or Swedish if he's still in Norway. :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 16, 2009, 08:12:46 PM
I think Slargos is a Norwegian spy. Or Swedish if he's still in Norway. :unsure:
:lol:
I'm back in Sweden.
But I will admit you've lost me. :unsure:
What a stupid question! Of course they should.
The kids should give more points; they're the hardest to hit :huh:
Don't you love those loaded questions that make you feel like a barbarian if you don't answer them in a certain way?
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2009, 08:22:34 PM
Don't you love those loaded questions that make you feel like a barbarian if you don't answer them in a certain way?
Actually, I do. I love answering in tone with my conscience, knowing that somewhere someone is expecting me to feel like a bad person in doing so, but being disappointed, even if they will never know it..
This seems fair for the BBC World Service Africa section given that this is an important current debate in Africa. Now I think if it was BBC America, or the BBC homepage that had it that would be rather weird.
Quote from: Slargos on December 16, 2009, 08:16:43 PM
But I will admit you've lost me. :unsure:
Good :shifty:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2009, 10:12:01 PM
This seems fair for the BBC World Service Africa section given that this is an important current debate in Africa.
You're very fair to people who want to kill you
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 16, 2009, 10:51:52 PM
You're very fair to people who want to kill you
Not at all. I think it's a monstrous bill that the rest of the world should condemn and if it's passed there should be punitive measures put on Uganda. But I think it's fair enough for a news service to do with that area to host a debate on their website about it. This is a news story in Africa and the BBC World Service Africa should, I'd argue has to reflect that, if it's to remain a credible broadcaster.
Seems reasonable.
I won't even bother to post a shrill response.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2009, 11:34:18 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 16, 2009, 10:51:52 PM
You're very fair to people who want to kill you
Not at all. I think it's a monstrous bill that the rest of the world should condemn and if it's passed there should be punitive measures put on Uganda. But I think it's fair enough for a news service to do with that area to host a debate on their website about it. This is a news story in Africa and the BBC World Service Africa should, I'd argue has to reflect that, if it's to remain a credible broadcaster.
BBC Africa, 1997. "Should we cut the tall grass?"
I prefer to look away from executions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2009, 11:34:18 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 16, 2009, 10:51:52 PM
You're very fair to people who want to kill you
Not at all. I think it's a monstrous bill that the rest of the world should condemn and if it's passed there should be punitive measures put on Uganda. But I think it's fair enough for a news service to do with that area to host a debate on their website about it. This is a news story in Africa and the BBC World Service Africa should, I'd argue has to reflect that, if it's to remain a credible broadcaster.
Did they run "Is the US the Great Satan?" or "Did the infidel in London Underground deserve to die?" in BBC Middle East?
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:50:12 AM
Did they run "Is the US the Great Satan?" or "Did the infidel in London Underground deserve to die?" in BBC Middle East?
I imagine not. But I'd hope they would be running forums about the role of religion in society, about the more draconian interpretations of Sharia and questions about terrorism on the BBC Arabic service.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 16, 2009, 10:51:52 PM
You're very fair to people who want to kill you
If I spent all my time being unreasonable to people who wanted to kill me, I wouldn't have very much time. :(
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:26:21 AM
I won't even bother to post a shrill response.
If only you used this approach more often.. ;)
Quote from: Jaron on December 17, 2009, 02:02:47 AM
If only you used this approach more often.. ;)
Is that the way you were taught to speak to your betters?
Or is this just public foreplay? :x
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:26:21 AM
I won't even bother to post a shrill response.
Oh, by all means, please. This would be one I'd want to hear.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:50:12 AM
Did they run "Is the US the Great Satan?" or "Did the infidel in London Underground deserve to die?" in BBC Middle East?
BBC Middle East : Should the Jews be stoned to death or beheaded?
Beheaded. You have to cut the head off or they'll keep coming back to life. :(
Quote from: Slargos on December 16, 2009, 08:26:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2009, 08:22:34 PM
Don't you love those loaded questions that make you feel like a barbarian if you don't answer them in a certain way?
Actually, I do. I love answering in tone with my conscience, knowing that somewhere someone is expecting me to feel like a bad person in doing so, but being disappointed, even if they will never know it..
:yes: Slargos is my Swedish brother.
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2009, 02:04:17 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 17, 2009, 02:02:47 AM
If only you used this approach more often.. ;)
Is that the way you were taught to speak to your betters?
Or is this just public foreplay? :x
:x alright. You have no idea the cyber-threesome those two and FB engage in. I often have to run away. Homos.
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2009, 02:04:17 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 17, 2009, 02:02:47 AM
If only you used this approach more often.. ;)
Is that the way you were taught to speak to your betters?
Or is this just public foreplay? :x
Is Martinus actually Jaron's better? I rather doubt it.
As someone said on TheAdvocate, try replacing "homosexuals" with any other minority group and see how much balls BBC have to pose a question like this. I think the question is completely unacceptable and whoever is behind this should be fired.
Maybe then homosexuals should take a look at their behavior and evaluate what they have done to make people hate them so much.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2009, 08:13:11 AM
Maybe then homosexuals should take a look at their behavior and evaluate what they have done to make people hate them so much.
Makes one wonder why you would be defending Uganda's "people".
Why does Neil say anything? To get a rise out of you, that's why. ^_^
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2009, 08:13:11 AM
Maybe then homosexuals should take a look at their behavior and evaluate what they have done to make people hate them so much.
Makes one wonder why you would be defending Uganda's "people".
Why would I defend Uganda's people? They are bandits, which are no better than homosexuals.
In the beautiful world to come, both homosexuals and Ugandans will be destroyed.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 08:03:03 AM
As someone said on TheAdvocate, try replacing "homosexuals" with any other minority group and see how much balls BBC have to pose a question like this. I think the question is completely unacceptable and whoever is behind this should be fired.
I agree, don't they kill Albino's and sell their body parts for folk medicine there, or is that Tanzania? You'd never see BBC putting up the question "Should Albino's be killed".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 17, 2009, 08:27:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 08:03:03 AM
As someone said on TheAdvocate, try replacing "homosexuals" with any other minority group and see how much balls BBC have to pose a question like this. I think the question is completely unacceptable and whoever is behind this should be fired.
I agree, don't they kill Albino's and sell their body parts for folk medicine there, or is that Tanzania? You'd never see BBC putting up the question "Should Albino's be killed".
How many albinos do you know? I guess one less than how many Martinuses.
Quote from: Tamas on December 17, 2009, 08:34:11 AM
How many albinos do you know? I guess one less than how many Martinuses.
I know two, one of them very well. Well enough that I know they are the Master Race secretly in control of the planet.
Tomorrow the BBC asks you when will you stop beating your wife?
BBC credibility yesterday= high.
today= low.
weak ass poll, no matter how you spin it.
What a hilariously horrible poll. I hope BBC Africa next asks: 'Should Africa be Recolonized?'
AFAIK, there aren't bills in front of any African legislatures petitioning to rejoin their former masters.
I am grateful to the BBC for providing such wonderful global entertainment. Those who wish can follow the shrill antics of the homophobic morons supporting the proposed Ugandan law on the BBC website, and those who couldn't be bothered can follow the shrill antics of the PC morons as they try to convince the world that there are questions that shouldn't be asked in the digital world, even if the question is actually being asked in the real world. :lmfao:
Bets poll since "should kiddyfuckers be allowed to escape justice if they are talented film makers?"
I'm with Shelf. There is value in learning the depth of anti-gay sentiment and by extension how much popular suppot this law is. I can recall several times when Iraqis were polled about the acceptability of suicide attacks.
Just because you ask a survey question doesn't mean you're hoping for a yes answer.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
I am grateful to the BBC for providing such wonderful global entertainment. Those who wish can follow the shrill antics of the homophobic morons supporting the proposed Ugandan law on the BBC website, and those who couldn't be bothered can follow the shrill antics of the PC morons as they try to convince the world that there are questions that shouldn't be asked in the digital world, even if the question is actually being asked in the real world. :lmfao:
Should there be a poll "Did Holocaust really happen?" or "Did Americans deserve 911?"? After all, these are all questions that are being asked in the real world?
I guess it is a broader question of the role of the media - should it be simply a mirror of reality, however nasty it is or should it avoid situations in which it legitimizes extreme, unacceptable views even if some people on the face of planet embrace them?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2009, 01:27:37 PM
I'm with Shelf. There is value in learning the depth of anti-gay sentiment and by extension how much popular suppot this law is. I can recall several times when Iraqis were polled about the acceptability of suicide attacks.
Just because you ask a survey question doesn't mean you're hoping for a yes answer.
But is this really the case? I mean, as some of the people criticizing the poll pointed out, most of the votes came from the UK and came from trolls and haters, rather than being presented as a real debate (and again, do you really expect the internet responses to a question like this to reflect some sort of global consensus, rather than a bunch of extremists and trolls using this as a forum to preach their appalling ideas?)
Not all questions and ideas are equally valid - especially when expressed on an anonymous, unmoderated forum such as the internet.
Good point. I mean, that's why when the Yankees put up an Internet poll on what song should they play during the 7th inning stretch once they got "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Rick Astley. :lol:
To their credit, they *did* actually play the song, although the fans booed the living shit out of it.
I like the song. :blush:
And, on the flip side, if you consider this a forum for the actual debate, rather than a playground for trolls, don't you think that posing a question like this on a reputable international website legitimizes the issue and paints the monsters who think gays should be killed as a side capable of presenting reasons and justifications for their despicable views?
What the Ugandan government is proposing is essentially Holocaust of gays. If BBC existed in 1940, do you think it should be asking questions like "Do you think Jews should be sent to death camps?"
All this issue shows is the fact that gays remain the only minority that "it is ok to hate". Had the question been asked about anyone else - Muslims, Jews, Blacks, American soldiers or any other group you could think of - there would be a shitstorm, protests in the streets and possibly heads would roll at the highest levels of BBC. But it's different for homos. Disgusting.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:31:43 PM
Should there be a poll "Did Holocaust really happen?" or "Did Americans deserve 911?"? After all, these are all questions that are being asked in the real world?
Sure, if those questions become newsworthy again. There were such polls back when those were issues. There have been polls about "Should the US have invaded Iraq" and "Should euthanasia be allowed" as well.
QuoteI guess it is a broader question of the role of the media - should it be simply a mirror of reality, however nasty it is or should it avoid situations in which it legitimizes extreme, unacceptable views even if some people on the face of planet embrace them?
These are not the only choices, though, so your question (though you try to make it loaded) is moot.
And finally, all of this convinces me that grallon is actually right - that the liberal "hear everyone's opinion" is truly moronic and will not protect us against hatred and persecution - it will be our destruction.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2009, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:31:43 PM
Should there be a poll "Did Holocaust really happen?" or "Did Americans deserve 911?"? After all, these are all questions that are being asked in the real world?
Sure, if those questions become newsworthy again. There were such polls back when those were issues. There have been polls about "Should the US have invaded Iraq" and "Should euthanasia be allowed" as well.
Surely you are not comparing these questions to the ones I used as examples (or the one about gays being executed). :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:36:05 PM
But is this really the case? I mean, as some of the people criticizing the poll pointed out, most of the votes came from the UK and came from trolls and haters, rather than being presented as a real debate (and again, do you really expect the internet responses to a question like this to reflect some sort of global consensus, rather than a bunch of extremists and trolls using this as a forum to preach their appalling ideas?)
Not all questions and ideas are equally valid - especially when expressed on an anonymous, unmoderated forum such as the internet.
Was it a fake internet poll? I didn't know that. Changes everything.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:52:02 PM
And, on the flip side, if you consider this a forum for the actual debate, rather than a playground for trolls, don't you think that posing a question like this on a reputable international website legitimizes the issue and paints the monsters who think gays should be killed as a side capable of presenting reasons and justifications for their despicable views?
No, it doesn't. What is does is draw them out of the woodwork so that people who folllow BBC but not the hate sites get to see what is festering out of their sight.
QuoteWhat the Ugandan government is proposing is essentially Holocaust of gays. If BBC existed in 1940, do you think it should be asking questions like "Do you think Jews should be sent to death camps?"
Ah, one would expect that Godwin's Law would be violated by the person claiming they were not going to get shrill! :lmfao:
What the Ugandan government proposes is nothing of the sort. What they propose is despicable, but far from the Holocaust.
QuoteAll this issue shows is the fact that gays remain the only minority that "it is ok to hate". Had the question been asked about anyone else - Muslims, Jews, Blacks, American soldiers or any other group you could think of - there would be a shitstorm, protests in the streets and possibly heads would roll at the highest levels of BBC. But it's different for homos. Disgusting.
This issue actually shows that gays are the only minority so shrill they defeat their own purposes. One seems top hear more from the "moderate Muslims" more often than from the "moderate gays" (though, to be sure, this is probably because moderate gays are less passionate about being gay that moderate Muslims are about be Muslim).
In any case, the BBC has delivered. :bowler:
One has to remember this is the same BBC which last year blocked the humanitarian appeal about Gaza because it didn't want to "take sides" in the Israel-Palestine poll. So they are perfectly happy to censor messages they send.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:55:28 PM
Surely you are not comparing these questions to the ones I used as examples (or the one about gays being executed). :huh:
I don't know if Shirley is doing so or not, but I am pointing out that debates/polls such as you note have been conducted. If not by the BBC, then by someone. I think a BBC-ME poll about whether, for instance, suicide bombing was morally justified would be acceptable if that became newsworthy.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 02:02:09 PM
One has to remember this is the same BBC which last year blocked the humanitarian appeal about Gaza because it didn't want to "take sides" in the Israel-Palestine poll. So they are perfectly happy to censor messages they send.
Yes, we knew that the BBC does not send messages impulsively. In fact, we count on it.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2009, 02:00:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:52:02 PM
And, on the flip side, if you consider this a forum for the actual debate, rather than a playground for trolls, don't you think that posing a question like this on a reputable international website legitimizes the issue and paints the monsters who think gays should be killed as a side capable of presenting reasons and justifications for their despicable views?
No, it doesn't. What is does is draw them out of the woodwork so that people who folllow BBC but not the hate sites get to see what is festering out of their sight.
QuoteWhat the Ugandan government is proposing is essentially Holocaust of gays. If BBC existed in 1940, do you think it should be asking questions like "Do you think Jews should be sent to death camps?"
Ah, one would expect that Godwin's Law would be violated by the person claiming they were not going to get shrill! :lmfao:
What the Ugandan government proposes is nothing of the sort. What they propose is despicable, but far from the Holocaust.
It's not "Godwin's Law" if one side is proposing killing all members of a specific minority - it becomes an apt analogy.
QuoteAll this issue shows is the fact that gays remain the only minority that "it is ok to hate". Had the question been asked about anyone else - Muslims, Jews, Blacks, American soldiers or any other group you could think of - there would be a shitstorm, protests in the streets and possibly heads would roll at the highest levels of BBC. But it's different for homos. Disgusting.
This issue actually shows that gays are the only minority so shrill they defeat their own purposes. One seems top hear more from the "moderate Muslims" more often than from the "moderate gays" (though, to be sure, this is probably because moderate gays are less passionate about being gay that moderate Muslims are about be Muslim).
In any case, the BBC has delivered. :bowler:
[/quote]
You call "Godwin's Law" on me and yet use a retarded analogy like this? Gays may be shrill, but comparing them to extremist muslims is simply dishonest to the extreme. Last time I checked, extremist muslims were saying "We want to destroy the West" whereas the "extremist" gays were saying "We are really upset people want to slaughter us."
Anyway, I am not going to post anymore. This is circular, and it takes me 5 minutes to post a single post on Languish recently, for some reason.
I hear from moderate gays all the time. :huh:
i don't suppose individuals in uganda committing extreme cases of rape in general are executed, just homosexual-rape--right? i don't see a legitimate reason to penalize homosexuality just because the chances of spreading HIV are higher
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2009, 02:08:06 PM
I hear from moderate gays all the time. :huh:
Congratulations. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2009, 02:12:54 PM
Congratulations. :hug:
We use body language, actually. :blush:
"The Man who pretends to be a modest enquirer into the truth of a self evident thing is a Knave." - William Blake
I don't know why people are upset, if in fact any people are upset. Only someone living in a cave doesn't know that the question is relevant in Africa today.
Here is the BBC's "apology" and some comments which I agree thoroughly with.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/africa_debate.html
I am seriously considering canceling my subscriptions to BBC podcasts and websites and stopping buying their products. Even FoxNews appears to be less homophobic than the "impartial" BBC.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 02:14:28 PM
"The Man who pretends to be a modest enquirer into the truth of a self evident thing is a Knave." - William Blake
"I have never seen an ass who talked like a human being, but I have met many human beings who talked like asses. " -Heinrich Henne
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 02:22:45 PM
I am seriously considering canceling my subscriptions to BBC podcasts
LOL podcasts
Quote from: Lacroix on December 17, 2009, 02:10:24 PM
i don't suppose individuals in uganda committing extreme cases of rape in general are executed, just homosexual-rape--right? i don't see a legitimate reason to penalize homosexuality just because the chances of spreading HIV are higher
If the objective is to curb the spread of HIV I can only applaud them for their moral fortitude in doing what has to be done.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:54:26 PM
And finally, all of this convinces me that Grallon is actually right - that the liberal "hear everyone's opinion" is truly moronic and will not protect us against hatred and persecution - it will be our destruction.
I marvel at the alacrity with which you diss me in one thread and praise my opinions in another. Your moral flexibility is simply bewildering.
As for this poll - it's in bad taste - but its intended audience is african after all - so what can one expects?
G.
Quote from: Slargos on December 17, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
If the objective is to curb the spread of HIV I can only applaud them for their moral fortitude in doing what has to be done.
Sounds like a bad measure in that homosexuals can't possibly infect so many people unless HIV just radiates out of our bodies.
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2009, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 17, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
If the objective is to curb the spread of HIV I can only applaud them for their moral fortitude in doing what has to be done.
Sounds like a bad measure in that homosexuals can't possibly infect so many people unless HIV just radiates out of our bodies.
Best to execute everyone who has HIV then. Just to makes sure nobody dies from it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2009, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 17, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
If the objective is to curb the spread of HIV I can only applaud them for their moral fortitude in doing what has to be done.
Sounds like a bad measure in that homosexuals can't possibly infect so many people unless HIV just radiates out of our bodies.
Best to execute everyone who has HIV then. Just to makes sure nobody dies from it.
I like the way you think.
Haven't we already cured it? I mean, Magic Johnson's still alive, right?
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2009, 02:53:45 PMSounds like a bad measure in that homosexuals can't possibly infect so many people unless HIV just radiates out of our bodies.
apparently, every homosexual is a rapist that will spread hiv :rolleyes: (not directed toward you)
Quote from: Peter WigginHaven't we already cured it? I mean, Magic Johnson's still alive, right?
sarcasm?
Quote from: Lacroix on December 17, 2009, 04:01:59 PM
apparently, every homosexual is a rapist that will spread hiv :rolleyes: (not directed toward you)
Even if we were, we'd have to make it a full time career to spread it to so many people.
Quote from: Lacroix on December 17, 2009, 04:01:59 PM
sarcasm?
Well, it was a joke, though not particularly sarcastic. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2009, 04:05:22 PMEven if we were, we'd have to make it a full time career to spread it to so many people.
maybe they should study this, follow the activities of a homosexual rapist in africa to find out how many fall victim to his antics and the number of diagnosed cases of hiv afterward. that would at least settle one question posited by the internet
Cured? Magic Johnson is still gay. :contract:
Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2009, 04:45:07 PM
Cured? Magic Johnson is still gay. :contract:
He was being sarcastic. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 02:22:45 PM
I am seriously considering canceling my subscriptions to BBC podcasts and websites and stopping buying their products.
Well I hope it's as effective as your boycott against Jamaican products :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 02:22:45 PM
I am seriously considering canceling my subscriptions to BBC podcasts and websites and stopping buying their products. Even FoxNews appears to be less homophobic than the "impartial" BBC.
Feel free to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2009, 01:27:37 PM
I'm with Shelf. There is value in learning the depth of anti-gay sentiment and by extension how much popular suppot this law is. I can recall several times when Iraqis were polled about the acceptability of suicide attacks.
Just because you ask a survey question doesn't mean you're hoping for a yes answer.
By the look of the picture the Guardian story had this wasn't a poll but a topic within a BBC forum (plus a poll) which I think adds more value. It's worthwhile enabling debate. Now I understand that it's unpleasant and deeply distasteful to us to even have the question (because it suggests an implicit acceptance of the framing) but in an African context with a bill currently sitting in Uganda's Parliament I think that's very valuable indeed. I initially thought that the question was a bit badly phrased but the more I think about it the more I like it because I think it confronts potential supporters of the bill with the reality of what it would mean.
The BBC World Service is in a difficult position by its very nature. It's not a propaganda broadcaster but it does come from a Western liberal democracy. It has, to some extent, to hold a mirror to its audience so that it's relevant - thus I imagine the discussion by readers on the BBC Arabic service isn't terribly enlightened about gender equality - while, I suppose, implicitly trying to encourage Western style values through the embodiment of them a liberalness, and above all a free, unrestrained media.
QuoteI am seriously considering canceling my subscriptions to BBC podcasts and websites and stopping buying their products. Even FoxNews appears to be less homophobic than the "impartial" BBC.
Wouldn't matter. The BBC World Service is funded separate from the rest of the BBC, it's actually funded by the Foreign Office. The only way to boycott them would be to not pay taxes in Britain :P
From their 'apology':
QuoteThe original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused. But it's important that this does not detract from what is a crucial debate for Africans and the international community.
The programme was a legitimate and responsible attempt to support a challenging discussion about proposed legislation that advocates the death penalty for those who undertake certain homosexual activities in Uganda - an important issue where the BBC can provide a platform for debate that otherwise would not exist across the continent and beyond.
I agree with that and I'm glad it's a non-apology apology (saying sorry for 'any offence caused' rather than anything else'.
Incidentally here's the text the BBC posted with the poll question/forum thing:
QuoteShould homosexuals face execution? Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an anti-homosexuality bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death.
The bill proposes: Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act. The death sentence where the offender has HIV, is a 'serial offender' or the other person is under 18. Imprisonment for seven years for 'attempted homosexuality'.
The bill claims to 'protect the...traditional family values of the people of Uganda', but it has prompted widespread international condemnation.
Homosexuality is regarded as taboo in much of Africa, where it is often regarded as a threat to cultural, religious and social values.
Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual 'offences' be monitored? Send us your views.
The question was later rephrased as 'Should Uganda debate gay execution?' Which I think is a far worse question. I'd also note that BBC Africa also has a debate on whether women should be allowed to become 'paramount chiefs'
I think the main problem here is double standards, Sheilbh. Do you think BBC Europe (which covers Balkans, too) should have been running a poll "Should Bosnians be slaughtered to make way for the Great Serbia state? in 1990s?
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2009, 02:47:21 AM
I think the main problem here is double standards, Sheilbh. Do you think BBC Europe (which covers Balkans, too) should have been running a poll "Should Bosnians be slaughtered to make way for the Great Serbia state? in 1990s?
No. But I don't think that's double standards. In Yugoslavia you had an ongoing genocide. In this case you have a law against homosexuality that includes the death penalty as a potential punishment. That's being debated - and could possibly spread to other African countries, I believe Rwanda and Burundi are both following with interest. I think this question:
QuoteShould homosexuals face execution? Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an anti-homosexuality bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death.
Is actually a useful contribution in the same way as I think a wdebate on the collapse of Yugoslavia (which, yes, I would expect the BBC to host) would be a good thing, if it establishes at the start the 'stark and disturbing' truth that ethnic cleansing is happening. At that point the people who support this bill have to defend it on those terms and in the Yugo analogy they would be no denying that ethnic cleansing was taking place.
I don't think inviting a debate whether, essentially, a category of BBC viewers (gays) have a right to live is not a good idea. Sorry. They could have phrased it differently.
I'm not sure whether I agree with Marti or Sheilbh, leaning towards Marti's view atm, so keep the arguments coming guys :huh:
On the other hand, I'm reasonably convinced that the proposed law in Uganda is far more reprehensible than a possible lapse of editorial judgement at the BBC. So, has the BBC's question raised awareness of Uganda's plans or diverted attention away from them and pushed Westerners into an introspective debate?
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2009, 03:05:02 AM
I don't think inviting a debate whether, essentially, a category of BBC viewers (gays) have a right to live is not a good idea. Sorry. They could have phrased it differently.
The BBC didn't invite the debate; the Ugandan Parliament did. Similarly I don't think the BBC opening a section of Have Your Say to this subject legitimises it, I think a proposed law does that. As I say I think it's a positive thing that when discussing it and opening the subject to discussion the BBC frames it in terms of the 'stark and disturbing question' of whether gays should face execution because that is the policy Uganda is currently deciding on and it shouldn't be obfuscated.
So assuming the lack of trolls (which is hopeless I know), what damage can a poll like this do? If the majority answer is no, it is nice. If the majority answer is yes, then hey at least we can see that all the tolerance talk is just a disguise in front of what is a largely ignorant and hateful society.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 03:22:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2009, 03:05:02 AM
I don't think inviting a debate whether, essentially, a category of BBC viewers (gays) have a right to live is not a good idea. Sorry. They could have phrased it differently.
The BBC didn't invite the debate; the Ugandan Parliament did. Similarly I don't think the BBC opening a section of Have Your Say to this subject legitimises it, I think a proposed law does that. As I say I think it's a positive thing that when discussing it and opening the subject to discussion the BBC frames it in terms of the 'stark and disturbing question' of whether gays should face execution because that is the policy Uganda is currently deciding on and it shouldn't be obfuscated.
I think there is a difference if a question is raised by a third world shithole of a state and an internationally respected institution with its headquarters in one of the world's oldest and most advanced democracies. Uganda and its people (or at least its people's representatives) seem to be reprehensible shit-for-brains and I don't see why they should be given "airtime" on the BBC.
Not all views are equally valid. It's that simple. Even the most pluralistic debate must acknowledge the fact that there are boundaries it should not cross. Uganda crosses that boundary by a mile.
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2009, 03:44:04 AM
So assuming the lack of trolls (which is hopeless I know), what damage can a poll like this do? If the majority answer is no, it is nice. If the majority answer is yes, then hey at least we can see that all the tolerance talk is just a disguise in front of what is a largely ignorant and hateful society.
Discounting the fact that most people (you included) would find it offensive if someone made a poll about their right to live, this legitimizes the side which argues it is ok (or desirable) to execute gay people. This is an endorsement of sorts, or at least recognition that they may have valid arguments, rather than are madmen who should be treated like rabid dogs.
One of the biggest failings of liberalism is the implicit assumption that all topics can and should be discussed, and everyone can be reasoned with - this is a great fallacy, dating back to enlightenment, if not further back.
I personally like the analogy made by Aquinas when he was discussing human laws and their conformity with the "natural law" (which he understood as the law being fair and just). It's like building a house - there is no one way of doing it, or even one way that is best. One can have a big house or a smaller house, one with many doors or just one door, or taller or smaller windows, for example. And it will still be a house. But not anything one builds can be called a house - if it has no windows and doors, and if it is too small for a human to enter, then it is not a house - and all you can do is to raze it, rather than trying to live or improve it.
The African bureau has a duty to appeal to Africans.
And, let's face it, it is a legitimate debate.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2009, 08:42:47 AM
Discounting the fact that most people (you included) would find it offensive if someone made a poll about their right to live, this legitimizes the side which argues it is ok (or desirable) to execute gay people. This is an endorsement of sorts, or at least recognition that they may have valid arguments, rather than are madmen who should be treated like rabid dogs.
Except you can't really treat them like rabid dogs. They're a nation-state, and are thus entitled to some small level of self-determination.
QuoteOne of the biggest failings of liberalism is the implicit assumption that all topics can and should be discussed, and everyone can be reasoned with - this is a great fallacy, dating back to enlightenment, if not further back.
It's amusing watching you turn your back on liberalism, given that it's the only thing keeping you from getting butchered like a hog. It is the unrestricted realm of discussion that allowed faggotry to move from being the most heinous crime imaginable to being generally accepted.
QuoteI personally like the analogy made by Aquinas when he was discussing human laws and their conformity with the "natural law" (which he understood as the law being fair and just). It's like building a house - there is no one way of doing it, or even one way that is best. One can have a big house or a smaller house, one with many doors or just one door, or taller or smaller windows, for example. And it will still be a house. But not anything one builds can be called a house - if it has no windows and doors, and if it is too small for a human to enter, then it is not a house - and all you can do is to raze it, rather than trying to live or improve it.
'Natural law' doesn't really exist, in the sense that Aquinas wishes it did. Law is entirely a social construction, and different social groups will always have different views of what is fair and just.
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2009, 08:51:39 AM
It's amusing watching you turn your back on liberalism, given that it's the only thing keeping you from getting butchered like a hog. It is the unrestricted realm of discussion that allowed faggotry to move from being the most heinous crime imaginable to being generally accepted.
I hate to say it Marty but Neil is right on this.
Of course, while liberalism allows everyone to voice their opinion, it also allows (or should allow) mocking and marginalizing of said opinion if it is considered idiotic by enough people.
The idea that something which one finds offensive must be met with shrill rhetoric, talk of total boycott, and nonsensical and tortured logic is a mark of the dysfunction of communication and primacy of ideology over reason. Congratulations, Marty, you are a fundamentalist.
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2009, 08:51:39 AM
'Natural law' doesn't really exist, in the sense that Aquinas wishes it did. Law is entirely a social construction, and different social groups will always have different views of what is fair and just.
Amidst the constant rehash of his outdated pick up lines Neil sometimes allow glimpses of his true worth to come through. :thumbsup:
G.
I believe in the Forms. The Forms will protect us.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
I am grateful to the BBC for providing such wonderful global entertainment. Those who wish can follow the shrill antics of the homophobic morons supporting the proposed Ugandan law on the BBC website, and those who couldn't be bothered can follow the shrill antics of the PC morons as they try to convince the world that there are questions that shouldn't be asked in the digital world, even if the question is actually being asked in the real world. :lmfao:
Bets poll since "should kiddyfuckers be allowed to escape justice if they are talented film makers?"
She told me she was 18!
Quote from: Grallon on December 17, 2009, 02:49:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2009, 01:54:26 PM
And finally, all of this convinces me that Grallon is actually right - that the liberal "hear everyone's opinion" is truly moronic and will not protect us against hatred and persecution - it will be our destruction.
I marvel at the alacrity with which you diss me in one thread and praise my opinions in another. Your moral flexibility is simply bewildering.
G.
He is consistent in his inconsistency.