I for one am quite willing to say to a country that it is inappropriate to execute someone based on gender, religion , race, sexual-being to name a few.

I personally find any execution abhorrent...or taking of life; however, I recognize that there are some items where it is based on one's belief system -- example, some countries believe that those who murder people should also be put to death.  Some people consider abortion murder. Some people consider euthanasia murder. Shucks, some people think killing an animal for food is murder.

But, I will stand tall and say that I do not believe that based on one's being, one should be put to death.

beshpin seems to think that my stating that, or attempting to influence a country based on that is wrong.

Now, i struggle with this thread...i find even the conversation vile.  I feel like i am feeding the worst kind of troll.  I feel like I am covered in excrement...or at least swimming in it.

i do recognize that others seem willing to challenge and discuss.

Given that, I will not likely be engaged in this thread; hwoever, create it for those who feel there is value in showing the fallacy of the arguments.

As stated, Beshpin.  I will not argue with you in any way, regarding whether it is ever acceptable or logical to murder someone based on the items, such as I listed.

  cover it up with whatever you want.  Pick it on the colour of my skin. Pick it about what gender I am . Pick it about who I am attracted to, Pick about what religion I am.  I don't care.

I will not stoop to such low levels.  Period.

I will not wallow in that filth with you

Ah, Beshpin, your posts really make me think. Is it right to have speed limits? Shouldn't people be free to drive as they like? Were we right to put people like Hermann Goering on trial? Shouldn't Germany have been allowed to treat its Jews as it wished? If it rains, and we raise and umbrella, are we interfering with the workings of nature?

You are the master of the pompously irrelevant question.

graeme

There is no sense in your post, so I shall not try to invent any.

As to you use of the word "allowed", as in all countries are allowed to treat their citizens as they wish, I have no idea what the precise meaming of allowed is - allowed by whom or what - but  I do know this has nothing to with with whether we should feel free to criticize it.

You really must learn to use words more precisely.

When I was a kid most trollers preferred to use a "Junebug trolling harness".  It was this gaudy 6 inch long thing that had silver spinners and red glass beads and silver beads  with three snelled hooks on which you could hang a piece of bleeding meat (like a dew worm).  I don't believe you can purchase Junebugs any more but I see that together we seem to have created the online equivalent of a Junebug.  Apparently the combination of long, gaudy, and bleeding is a potent combination in the lake or on the internet.  Use of multicoloured fonts may well be the innovation needed to make an already potent combination a true killer.

Well I guess I need a mental examination then.  In coming to this conclusion, I note that although I never mentioned your name in the post above ,Beshpin, and, despite the fact that I stated that "together we seem to have created" this Junebug, you seem to have felt that my words were particularly applicable to you.  Having given it some more thought ( and in the light of your response), I think I agree.

One does not have to view Uganada through a Canadian lens. That is you limiting the options.

One can agree with a nation's right to sovereignty and still see that they, governmental leaders or those in power, toss the constitution aside on so called "behalf" of the citizens. 

Uganda is a recent member to the United Nations.(Jan 2009). They were elected a non-permanent  member of the United Nations for a term of two years.

Joining the United Nations hopefully means you know what the UN is. That you know it means facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. It would hopefully mean you read the charter. It means you understand that although you are a sovereign nation, among 192 sovereign nations, you are agreeing to be a global partner. It means you understand, hopefully, that there is a Human Rights Council of the UN. That there are international courts, etc... That there are agreed upon human rights...

That is not ethnocentrism. There are 192 countries, almost every sovereign nation, represented. You cannot call that ethnocentrism.

Again, one does not have to view it through a Canada lens OR a global lens.
 

One may view it through a Ugandan lens. One may know the advancements made in public opinion about Uganda and Ugandans after Idi Amin. One could know the economy after being destroyed during Amin's years, is growing. One may know the advancements and slow in the HIV arena and see them being rolled back. One may see that this is too soon after a civil war. One may say that after accusing the Lord's Resistance Army of atrocities, it is not helpful to Musuveni's government. One may worry it would bring about more strife in an already blood drenched battlefield. One may be concerned that some of the African Union may not aid you in the event of civil war based on Ugandan policy contravening their own.  One many worry about UN sanctions., One may worry that freedom of speech, assembly, dissemination of information... takes away basic human rights of all Ugandans, rights in the Constitution and held as UN human rights.

Every avenue you look at seems to be about imposing upon Ugandans. There is also empowering Ugandans.

You seem to be viewing everything though a Canadian lens and then calling others ethnocentric based upon what you see out of your own lens.

As global citizens, as citizens of United Nation member countries, we do have a say. The same as Uganda would have a say if Canada was to contemplate or impose a law that was a violation of UN human rights.  

Beshpin's discussion of culture is silly.  This isn't about culture.  It's about a dictator who wants to distract the public from the failures of his government by whipping up hysteria against a vulnerable scape-goat.  I doubt stopping homosexuality is much of a priority for the average Uganda, making do with $260 a year.  This is all about Mouseveni staying in power, Ugandan culture be damned. 

You're still sticking with that stupid idea that racism and homophobia are not comparable eh?

Well at least you're consistent in your prejudice and bigotry.

Sorry, beshpin, but I have to ask, are you thick?

Are you unaware that folks can & do lie about race?

It happened in the south..when having a certain colour of skin could result in your being a slave and murdered.

To illustrate how seriously I take this ridiculous, asinine thread, let me just say that the Toronto Maple Leafs beat the Detroit Red Wings 5 to 1 on November 7.  Also, Montreal and Ottawa both lost their games.  Hockey is my religion, race, sex and gender identity.  Will I be executed, or be given a 100 meter head start?  Seriously, Lord Beshpin Almighty, what is your ultimate and perfect answer?  Help us, Obi-wan-kenobe, you're our only hope!  BTW, some colleges and universities offer courses, some free of charge, in all areas of arts and social sciences.  Perhaps your time would be better spent actually learning something.  All together now, "Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream." Or, with apologies to Credence Clearwater Revival, "Trollin', trollin', tollin' on the river."  Does Beshpin listen to the "Trolling Stones"?

thanks joejack.

It seems that elves and dwarves have been at it forever.  Elves, with their haughty and ineffable ways, living forever, having tea ceremonies that last for centuries. Dwarves, being born from solid rock, living in moldy and damp unlit places, and their damnable ROCK music...

It is no wonder they always come to blows.

(never mention the 'forbidden' of the two.  I mean, if an elf touches a dwarf, how wrong is that?  If they penetrate deep into their mines, is that worse than just a reccy?  What if an elf thinks of a dwarf, and so forth)

So we, the ones who have to live with them, how do we...police them?  Do we throw up a shield around them?  Do we send our own armies there?  Do we hire the Trade Federation to put a blockade? Which?

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

We're talking about people being killed for who they are.  Please spare me your fluffy paradoxes. 

FT,

I was just bemused by the notion of any authority killing someone because of their sexual orientation.  I think it is highly absurd to do so, and it made me try to think of what kind of test are they going to do to find out?  It is those kinds of absurdities that I am reminded of whenever I think of Capital Punishment.  Ritual killing, all over again.  We are so past that.  I am SO glad for the Internet, with its more-or-less instantaneous communication of ideas and events.  It gives us, the Ruling Class, more oomph, more agency in the world.  I am imagining, if this law passes, some activism consisting of finding out 'dirt' on the Movers & Shakers of that country, finding out if any of them are 'gay' in any sense and then...bringing that to their attention, so then they'd have to...well, be put in an awkward situation.  Just extending a principle of Jesus that WE ARE ALL ONE SO GET WITH THE LOVIN' :3

Beshpin,

there are two 'realities' of the Global Situation.  One is that each state is Soverign.  But, the other reality is that, since we are becoming a Global Village, "Soverign" does not mean "We can do Anything".  Which we (the Global We) are trying to hammer out at this moment.  To survive, we are figuring out the 'Baseline behaviours' which is Acceptable.  Which will include, what will we do if no one wants to obey those rules?  Which will include some countries, some of the time, giving up something so that countries that are in need can survive/get ahead.  And so forth.

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

Beshpin,

You said, "it is well within their rights as a sovereign state to do what they want with their citizenry". Are you serious? The UN, and the 192 nations in membership, out of what 203 sovereign states making most the world... do not agree with you.

The same applies to your example of Canada and what they might be want to do to their citizenry. The prevailing attitude is not "let them overthrow the government if they don't like it".

It means starting off under false premise. It is an argument from fallacy.

That is irrelevant to me anymore. Because, for myself, I have decided that it is not about debate and logic, it is about rhetoric. It is about you going ad nauseum until nobody cares and you might even go on if nobody is listening.

Asking " When has any nation invaded another to stop them from trampling over the human rights of their own citizens?" and qualifying it that it must be the only factor to fit in your definition is another example of your method of debate or lack of debate. That tries to make invasion or war a simple thing without layers and overlapping layers... It shows your parameters to be ridiculous.

There is simply no talking to you. Why? You refuse to allow it.

Trust me, that is not my only qualm. Again, it gets to the point that there is no point.

You act as debator and as mediator and even the ongoing judge of the debate.... Saying someone has the best argument. Saying they have proven something and then must argue (or it "seems imperative" that they argue) another point.  Or posing your own question and calling it a great question...

It just get's well... pointless.