5 ms·

"where sodomy is allowed when it occurs in private?" - Don't you see the absurdity in this question? They don't have to 'allow' anything when it is in PRIVATE t

"where sodomy is allowed when it occurs in private?" - Don't you see the absurdity in this question? They don't have to 'allow' anything when it is in PRIVATE to begin with. There is nothing revisionist about the privacy rulings, so you are just trying to force your bigoted narrative. How would they even manage to find out what's going on in millions & millions of bedrooms, besides it being a colossal waste of time!? The whole notion is just grotesque.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia#Living_conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia#Livin... That's describes a "moderate" Sharia regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#Living_conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#Living_co... And here's a more typical conservative regime. I guess I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether it's you or me who are being absurd. FWIW, I have no problem w/ Muslims practicing their faith as private citizens. When the government of a country becomes dominated by a religion, though, I have a problem with that. And that goes for Christian theocracies too, although those are much less common these days.
- aptidude187 6y ago
  He explicitly wrote: "Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private nor is it allowed to breach the individual's privacy. Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." You seem to have wilfully ignored that part, since neither you nor the article you linked addressed or opposed that part.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    He seems to have a definition of "in private" which essentially renders his statement tautological. Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected. But by that definition murder and rape are "legal" everywhere in the world, as long as they occur "in private." Being a Jew in Nazi Germany was also legal as long as it was "in private". Under that notion of privacy there has never been a time in history where sodomy or any other sexual act was forbidden. IMO this is not a useful way of thinking about legality or oppression. But if it works for you that's fine I guess.
    - aptidude187 6y ago
      >He seems to have a definition of "in private" which essentially renders his statement tautological. Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected Interesting change of rhetoric after being called out, since you formulated the bizarre question "where sodomy is allowed when it occurs in private?", before having the epiphany that "Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected" > But by that definition murder and rape are "legal" everywhere in the world, as long as they occur "in private." You are really going out on a limb to make nonsensical statements. The law has quite naturally limits, one of them being: the inability to judge events that it can't detect or reach. “Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” ― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan Law needs to be enforced by humans, who can only do so if they can perceive that event. >Under that notion of privacy there has never been a time in history where sodomy or any other sexual act was forbidden. Same point, limits of law. > IMO this is not a useful way of thinking about legality or oppression. What some consider 'oppression' today was the norm globally. The problem is moral realism/anti-realism, since you can't prove your moral value judgments with science they will remain subjective and thus naturally be opposed.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        > What some consider 'oppression' today was the norm globally. The problem is moral realism/anti-realism, since you can't prove your moral value judgments with science they will remain subjective and thus naturally be opposed. I'm afraid no amount of appeal to the evils of moral relativism are going to be enough to convince me that homosexuality is legal in most countries where the judgments of sharia courts are routinely enforced by the government.
        aptidude187 6y ago
        > I'm afraid no amount of appeal to the evils of moral relativism are going to be enough to convince me that homosexuality is legal in most countries where the judgments of sharia courts are routinely enforced by the government. That doesn't even make any sense. I am not trying to convince you of anything, all I did was educate you on the facts and I pointed out the inconsistencies in your arguments.
detaro 6y ago
So if evidence of sodomy were captured by a hidden camera, private communication about it were stolen, ... and published the people involved in the act wouldn't be punished in any country, because it occurred in private and wasn't acted upon publicly?

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia#Living_conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia#Livin... That's describes a "moderate" Sharia regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#Living_conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#Living_co... And here's a more typical conservative regime. I guess I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether it's you or me who are being absurd. FWIW, I have no problem w/ Muslims practicing their faith as private citizens. When the government of a country becomes dominated by a religion, though, I have a problem with that. And that goes for Christian theocracies too, although those are much less common these days.

aptidude187 6y ago
He explicitly wrote: "Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private nor is it allowed to breach the individual's privacy. Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." You seem to have wilfully ignored that part, since neither you nor the article you linked addressed or opposed that part.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  He seems to have a definition of "in private" which essentially renders his statement tautological. Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected. But by that definition murder and rape are "legal" everywhere in the world, as long as they occur "in private." Being a Jew in Nazi Germany was also legal as long as it was "in private". Under that notion of privacy there has never been a time in history where sodomy or any other sexual act was forbidden. IMO this is not a useful way of thinking about legality or oppression. But if it works for you that's fine I guess.
  - aptidude187 6y ago
    >He seems to have a definition of "in private" which essentially renders his statement tautological. Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected Interesting change of rhetoric after being called out, since you formulated the bizarre question "where sodomy is allowed when it occurs in private?", before having the epiphany that "Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected" > But by that definition murder and rape are "legal" everywhere in the world, as long as they occur "in private." You are really going out on a limb to make nonsensical statements. The law has quite naturally limits, one of them being: the inability to judge events that it can't detect or reach. “Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” ― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan Law needs to be enforced by humans, who can only do so if they can perceive that event. >Under that notion of privacy there has never been a time in history where sodomy or any other sexual act was forbidden. Same point, limits of law. > IMO this is not a useful way of thinking about legality or oppression. What some consider 'oppression' today was the norm globally. The problem is moral realism/anti-realism, since you can't prove your moral value judgments with science they will remain subjective and thus naturally be opposed.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      > What some consider 'oppression' today was the norm globally. The problem is moral realism/anti-realism, since you can't prove your moral value judgments with science they will remain subjective and thus naturally be opposed. I'm afraid no amount of appeal to the evils of moral relativism are going to be enough to convince me that homosexuality is legal in most countries where the judgments of sharia courts are routinely enforced by the government.
      - aptidude187 6y ago
        > I'm afraid no amount of appeal to the evils of moral relativism are going to be enough to convince me that homosexuality is legal in most countries where the judgments of sharia courts are routinely enforced by the government. That doesn't even make any sense. I am not trying to convince you of anything, all I did was educate you on the facts and I pointed out the inconsistencies in your arguments.

detaro 6y ago

So if evidence of sodomy were captured by a hidden camera, private communication about it were stolen, ... and published the people involved in the act wouldn't be punished in any country, because it occurred in private and wasn't acted upon publicly?