2 ms·

>Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with conscience... It has nothing to do with Pussy Riot. You're talking out of your a##. > Ju

>Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with conscience... It has nothing to do with Pussy Riot. You're talking out of your a##. > Just like people who bomb pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues. the same - it has nothing to do with Pussy Riot.

Mikeb85 13y ago
Really? They committed a crime using the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews...
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence? > The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews... Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    > former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence? It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period. > Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity. Challenging the church regarding their supposed support of Putin isn't the problem, using it as a justification for illegal behaviour is. What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world. In Canada, people spray painting political graffiti on a synagogue is a crime, even if the content of the graffiti isn't necessarily insulting to Judaism. The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it...
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period. what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat? I doubt whales would see it as a harm. Or people who worked for decades to restore whales population. Or people who are just disgusted by whale killings. >What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world. i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia? Or calling upon God to chase away a President is a crime "in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world"? > The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it... You seem to be saying that no illegal behaviour can be justified. Well, you've mentioned swastikas and Judaism before. That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong.
      - Mikeb85 13y ago
        > what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat? You know, things like harm to property and people... Eco terrorism isn't just whale protests. Here they bomb pipelines... > i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia? What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be within the scope of the law. > That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong. Really? I mean really? The laws are hardly unfair in this case...
        VladRussian2 13y ago
        >What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be within the scope of the law. Hate speech laws, while may sound like a reasonable thing in theory, on practice naturally allow for very selective enforcement (mostly due to their inherent vagueness - any political speech can be qualified as hate speech if there is a strong will to do so) and thus are used as extremely effective tool for oppression of political opponents by the powers-to-be while people like you (who seems to not understand or know that selective enforcement of laws is a form of tyranny and such enforcement actually voids those laws) are blinded by the fog-screen of declaration of "illegality". For example, nobody was arrested (less sent to prison) for publicly praying to God in support of Putin and his regime which is as much a hate speech toward the Putin's opponents as a public prayer to God to chase Putin away is a hate speech toward Putin and his supporters. As result, in their application in real life, hate speech laws is mostly very unjust and unfair laws and mostly used as a tool of unjustice. A right and just action like challenging powers-to-be on their unjust actions or statement of facts unpopular with the powers-to-be may very well result in conviction under such laws. And even without actual convictions, such laws result in unjust chilling effects on political opponents of the powers-to-be. Btw, this is why one of the greatest thing that US have and that sets US so far apart and ahead (as this thing is missing in the rest of the world) is the freedom of speech, the 1st Amendment.

Mikeb85 13y ago

Really? They committed a crime using the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews...

VladRussian2 13y ago
>the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence? > The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews... Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence? It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period. > Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity. Challenging the church regarding their supposed support of Putin isn't the problem, using it as a justification for illegal behaviour is. What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world. In Canada, people spray painting political graffiti on a synagogue is a crime, even if the content of the graffiti isn't necessarily insulting to Judaism. The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it...
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period. what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat? I doubt whales would see it as a harm. Or people who worked for decades to restore whales population. Or people who are just disgusted by whale killings. >What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world. i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia? Or calling upon God to chase away a President is a crime "in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world"? > The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it... You seem to be saying that no illegal behaviour can be justified. Well, you've mentioned swastikas and Judaism before. That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      > what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat? You know, things like harm to property and people... Eco terrorism isn't just whale protests. Here they bomb pipelines... > i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia? What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be within the scope of the law. > That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong. Really? I mean really? The laws are hardly unfair in this case...
      - VladRussian2 13y ago
        >What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be within the scope of the law. Hate speech laws, while may sound like a reasonable thing in theory, on practice naturally allow for very selective enforcement (mostly due to their inherent vagueness - any political speech can be qualified as hate speech if there is a strong will to do so) and thus are used as extremely effective tool for oppression of political opponents by the powers-to-be while people like you (who seems to not understand or know that selective enforcement of laws is a form of tyranny and such enforcement actually voids those laws) are blinded by the fog-screen of declaration of "illegality". For example, nobody was arrested (less sent to prison) for publicly praying to God in support of Putin and his regime which is as much a hate speech toward the Putin's opponents as a public prayer to God to chase Putin away is a hate speech toward Putin and his supporters. As result, in their application in real life, hate speech laws is mostly very unjust and unfair laws and mostly used as a tool of unjustice. A right and just action like challenging powers-to-be on their unjust actions or statement of facts unpopular with the powers-to-be may very well result in conviction under such laws. And even without actual convictions, such laws result in unjust chilling effects on political opponents of the powers-to-be. Btw, this is why one of the greatest thing that US have and that sets US so far apart and ahead (as this thing is missing in the rest of the world) is the freedom of speech, the 1st Amendment.