5 ms·

> As one of the debaters you don't get to decide whose argument is more persuasive. I sure do. > "as a part of his attempt to modernise", not for religious re

> As one of the debaters you don't get to decide whose argument is more persuasive. I sure do. > "as a part of his attempt to modernise", not for religious reasons. The article repeats the same point later: "The prohibition on sodomy was part of a larger reform movement designed to modernize Russia" And where did the idea that that should be a part of "modernization" come from? > ...and that was under an atheist regime. And how did Stalin get the idea?

leereeves 7y ago
> And how did Stalin get the idea? Clearly you think that the only reason anyone, even a militant atheist, is ever against homosexuality is because they are religious or got the idea from religion. As that's a belief not based on reason or facts, I won't try to argue you out of it. Been nice talking to you.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > Clearly you think that the only reason anyone, even a militant atheist, is ever against homosexuality is because they are religious or got the idea from religion. No, I was simply asking you for justification for your position. Because, you know, there is not exactly an obvious connection from "let's modernize this country" to "let's oppress homosexuals". Or from "I want to have someone to blame and a method to be able to discredit and punish who I consider my enemy" to "let's persecute homosexuals". That is just a complete non-sequitur, in either case--unless there is some pre-existing reason why you would connect the two. A reason why less homosexuality would be considered "more modern", or a reason why the general public would be expected to agree that homosexuals are a group of people that deserved punishment. I would be interested in what you think those reasons were.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Sorry about the delayed response; I'm on the road. I can't explain why the article says that. I didn't write it, or even cite it. It's your source. I'm just pointing out what the article says.

leereeves 7y ago

> And how did Stalin get the idea? Clearly you think that the only reason anyone, even a militant atheist, is ever against homosexuality is because they are religious or got the idea from religion. As that's a belief not based on reason or facts, I won't try to argue you out of it. Been nice talking to you.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Clearly you think that the only reason anyone, even a militant atheist, is ever against homosexuality is because they are religious or got the idea from religion. No, I was simply asking you for justification for your position. Because, you know, there is not exactly an obvious connection from "let's modernize this country" to "let's oppress homosexuals". Or from "I want to have someone to blame and a method to be able to discredit and punish who I consider my enemy" to "let's persecute homosexuals". That is just a complete non-sequitur, in either case--unless there is some pre-existing reason why you would connect the two. A reason why less homosexuality would be considered "more modern", or a reason why the general public would be expected to agree that homosexuals are a group of people that deserved punishment. I would be interested in what you think those reasons were.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Sorry about the delayed response; I'm on the road. I can't explain why the article says that. I didn't write it, or even cite it. It's your source. I'm just pointing out what the article says.