• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Uganda newspaper names 200 'homos' after anti-gay law signed

It's the same in principle but not necessarily the same in outcome - of course, to understand principle, you'd have to be able to appreciate that if something is wrong against those you favour, it is also wrong against those you oppose. Fortunately, for me, I appreciate the consistency of principle.

Someone who compares the newspapers in Uganda calling for the killing of homosexuals by name to a newspaper printing the names of people with gun permits is lecturing us about principle

Bless your heart, CJ!
 
CCW holders (except under very special circumstances which I am not aware to currently exist) won't have to fear for their lives. Nor would anyone reasonable assume that a CCW holder would be attacked (they have a weapon them!)

This makes it totally different, due to consequences and understanding of the potential consequences when the names were published.

In both cases, printing the names of people was unnecessary and a shame, but still, people are probably going to die in the uganda case, and that makes it far, far worse :(
CCW Holders and their homes were painted as targets and many from the anti-gun side seemed to think that a 'good' thing. Now...I choose to believe that means that really they only had the best of intention and they really really really really cared about the CCW holder and their families. Therefore, this also must be done to ensure the community protect those 200 homosexuals.
 
It is, look at all the hoopla for years over abortion and homosexuality in which there's been govt involvement.

My opinion is that they shouldn't be. No government should be telling you who to have sex with or how to have sex with them.
 
CCW Holders and their homes were painted as targets and many from the anti-gun side seemed to think that a 'good' thing. Now...I choose to believe that means that really they only had the best of intention and they really really really really cared about the CCW holder and their families. Therefore, this also must be done to ensure the community protect those 200 homosexuals.

Funny how when Sarah Palin had a campaign website with several congressional districts held by Democrats "in the sights" targetted for takeover, that was considered incitement of violence and Palin was accused of causing the Giffords shooting in Arizona with zero evidence to suggest it, but the same people can't fathom how "outing" gun owners might subject their homes to burglaries or worse by people looking to acquire guns illegally or worse.
 
Funny how when Sarah Palin had a campaign website with several congressional districts held by Democrats "in the sights" targetted for takeover, that was considered incitement of violence and Palin was accused of causing the Giffords shooting in Arizona with zero evidence to suggest it, but the same people can't fathom how "outing" gun owners might subject their homes to burglaries or worse by people looking to acquire guns illegally or worse.

I thought with a gun they'd be able to protect themselves from being burglarized, and if they're looking to sell illegally it's free advertising.

:mrgreen:
 
Obvious dishonest post is obvious
Wait...you are actually going on the record stating that the liberals and anti-gun types that were gleeful that the CCW holders personal and home information were gleeful because they wanted to see HARM come to them?

I am...shocked!!!
 
Wait...you are actually going on the record stating that the liberals and anti-gun types that were gleeful that the CCW holders personal and home information were gleeful because they wanted to see HARM come to them?

I am...shocked!!!

Now, I'm going on record as saying that what you claim you have chosen to believe is not what you have chosen to believe
 
Now, I'm going on record as saying that what you claim you have chosen to believe is not what you have chosen to believe
You misjudge me. I opt to see the better part of the people YOU apparently think are scumbags.
 
CCW Holders and their homes were painted as targets and many from the anti-gun side seemed to think that a 'good' thing. Now...I choose to believe that means that really they only had the best of intention and they really really really really cared about the CCW holder and their families. Therefore, this also must be done to ensure the community protect those 200 homosexuals.

That doesn't address my point
 
Evidently it's not just American media that has lost it's sense of journalistic integrity. Nevertheless, good for Uganda that they passed this bill. Contrary to false accusations in the media, the law does not require people to report homosexual activity.
 
That doesn't address my point
To the contrary...it absolutely does. Printing the names and addresses of CCW holders is likely to make them targets by criminals...the very people that WOULD put the family at risk.

IF of course that was their intent and not just to promote community safety and encourage neighbors to watch out for one another.
 
The principle, since you seem to have missed it entirely, is that you don't publish information against those you oppose with the obvious intent that some in the public will take that information and act on it. The intent, in both cases, was for those "outed" to be "attacked" by surrogates.

Except that "outed" and "attacked" mean two wildly different things here because one is a direct threat to the lives of 200 people, and the other isn't. The scale of the impact is vastly different.

Im certain that LIKE the US papers, their actual intent is to PROTECT those people, just as Im certain the people that support the US media's decisions to publish such lists REALLY just care about the well being of the gun owners. Surely those decisions transcend the government position.

This post is nothing but sarcasm and doesn't actually say anything at all.
 
I thought with a gun they'd be able to protect themselves from being burglarized, and if they're looking to sell illegally it's free advertising.

:mrgreen:

You can protect yourself, if you're home - not everyone who owns guns spends 24/7/52 in their houses awaiting intruders - not everyone living in a house is the gun owner/carrier - not every gun owner who has a CC permit has only one gun.

As you can see, if you identify homes that likely have guns, that allows someone to target that house when nobody is home, steal any guns within, and then use those guns illegally.

You actually have to be able to think through the consequences of smart-ass moves like "outing" anyone for any reason.
 
To the contrary...it absolutely does. Printing the names and addresses of CCW holders is likely to make them targets by criminals...the very people that WOULD put the family at risk.

IF of course that was their intent and not just to promote community safety and encourage neighbors to watch out for one another.

So, you're a criminal. When picking a target, you're going to go to the house where you know for a fact someone is armed?
 
You can protect yourself, if you're home - not everyone who owns guns spends 24/7/52 in their houses awaiting intruders - not everyone living in a house is the gun owner/carrier - not every gun owner who has a CC permit has only one gun.

As you can see, if you identify homes that likely have guns, that allows someone to target that house when nobody is home, steal any guns within, and then use those guns illegally.

You actually have to be able to think through the consequences of smart-ass moves like "outing" anyone for any reason.

But the CCW license would indicate the gun likely travels with its owner, making robbing the house a futile effort to acquire a gun.
 
Nice try - the thread is about the newpaper article, not the bill - my comments stand.

I'll await your habitual need to call me a liar.

Scott Lively is going to get what is coming to him. A cultist, deranged asshat like him will face the consequences of his own Kool Aid and history will remember him for the blood on his hands.
 
You can protect yourself, if you're home - not everyone who owns guns spends 24/7/52 in their houses awaiting intruders - not everyone living in a house is the gun owner/carrier - not every gun owner who has a CC permit has only one gun.

As you can see, if you identify homes that likely have guns, that allows someone to target that house when nobody is home, steal any guns within, and then use those guns illegally.

You actually have to be able to think through the consequences of smart-ass moves like "outing" anyone for any reason.

Your comparison is RETARDED!

Homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment in Uganda.

Gun ownership is a protected Constitutional right in the US with one of the strongest political lobbys in the world.

Your persecution complex is amazing.
 
Evidently it's not just American media that has lost it's sense of journalistic integrity. Nevertheless, good for Uganda that they passed this bill. Contrary to false accusations in the media, the law does not require people to report homosexual activity.


Can we get you on record saying that you would support locking up gay couples for life in the United States? I figure if you are going to applaud it in Uganda, you should indicate why you would or would not support it here.
 
But the CCW license would indicate the gun likely travels with its owner, making robbing the house a futile effort to acquire a gun.

Again, you assume that every gun owner only has one gun - if there are 300 million weapons in the US owned by citizens, that would dictate your assumption is utter nonsense.
 
Scott Lively is going to get what is coming to him. A cultist, deranged asshat like him will face the consequences of his own Kool Aid and history will remember him for the blood on his hands.

My comments were solely on the issue of "outing" people you disagree with for the sole purpose of having members of the public take matters into their own hands.
 
Your comparison is RETARDED!

Homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment in Uganda.

Gun ownership is a protected Constitutional right in the US with one of the strongest political lobbys in the world.

Your persecution complex is amazing.

Again, nothing retarded about standing on a principle - if it's wrong to out people, when it's people you sympathize with, it is also wrong to out people when you oppose them. It's really pretty simple.

I made no comments about the government policy - however, you cannot deny that the only reason the names were published was so that members of the public would act. It's true in each case, even if the consequences may be potentially, radically different.

Personal insults against me don't change those simple facts.
 
Again, nothing retarded about standing on a principle - if it's wrong to out people, when it's people you sympathize with, it is also wrong to out people when you oppose them. It's really pretty simple.

I made no comments about the government policy - however, you cannot deny that the only reason the names were published was so that members of the public would act. It's true in each case, even if the consequences may be potentially, radically different.

Personal insults against me don't change those simple facts.

I am sure when people are being murdered in Uganda they will feel terrible about the plight of those who had their gun ownership outed in the United States.
 
Except that "outed" and "attacked" mean two wildly different things here because one is a direct threat to the lives of 200 people, and the other isn't. The scale of the impact is vastly different.



This post is nothing but sarcasm and doesn't actually say anything at all.
I'm hurt. Really. Here I try to consistently ascribe positive motivations to the people that were gleeful and happy about a newspaper outing CCW holders and you and Sanga insist that anyone that was actually happy about the paper doing so were nothing but scumbags that wanted to see those people hurt. Well excuse me if I dont agree with your cynical outlook.
 
So, you're a criminal. When picking a target, you're going to go to the house where you know for a fact someone is armed?
Some criminals invested in securing weapons would be a bit more inclined to target homes where they knew the weapons were. Or...are you saying that like the New York papers, the Ugandan press is really just warning people that disagree with homosexuals not to go to their homes to try and sell donuts and paper subscriptions? Oh...wait...you think that the NY papers outed the CCW holders so the criminals could stay safe and clear of the homes and similarly, the Ugandan press was doing that for the Ugandan people.

No...I like my intent better. Like the NY papers...they just want their neighbors to keep an eye on them so that they can help them stay safe.
 
Back
Top Bottom