“We are atheists” vs I am a theist.

“secular worldview” vs religious worldview(however, Government should be secular and there should be separation of state from religion).

“We support the goals of the feminist movement” – while the feminist movement was right in exposing abuse of the female gender by the male gender in the past, I oppose their almost militant methods of ‘emasculating’ the male gender while ‘masculinizing’ the female gender. Human beings, biologically-speaking, are sexually dichotomous. Male and female are complementary and although they are equal in many areas, they are non-equal but complementary in others. Inequality is not inferiority but complementary.

With regards to “female economic participation” – I think employers are not keen to take in females because they think about , perhaps presumed ‘lack of productivity’ in pregnant female workforce and covering their maternity expenses(including sick leave). It’s more of minimal costs with maximal profits consideration rather than thinking females are inferior intellectually – at least in our modern world. It’s a problem of this perception that leads to the ‘gender discrimination’.

“LGBT rights” – they already have rights to be who they want to be. I construe such relations , excluding my religious beliefs, as biological dead-ends and hence not acceptable. They have the freedom to choose that lifestyle but I disagree that they should be militant about it(“Gay Pride”) nor should they insist that others who oppose or disagree with them ‘accept’ them via legal ramifications. I don’t agree with anti-LGBT who are violent towards them but I oppose same-sex marriage because it legalizes such unions. My view: their choice to carry on with the relationship but NO legal recognition.
(Some biologists have supposedly ‘proved’ that homosexuality is ‘biological’ – my refutation is : 1.)cancer, ischaemic heart disease, essential hypertension are ‘biological’ yet we try to reverse them; 2.)nature does have errors – and I view homosexuality observed in nature as biochemical/physiological errors 3.)Extrapolating animal ethology into human behaviour is inaccurate because humans have the ability to make choices which are combinations of rational/emotional/physiological/etc. The outcome of the choice depends on which conflicting ‘impulses’ triumph.

“It is obvious that global warming is both real and anthropic.”
There is no obvious proof. Being a person who loves science – especially ‘hard science’, I consider climate science to be ‘soft science’ with too many wildly differing models which end up with wildly different conclusions of ‘earth’s future climate’. Global warming is unproven to be anthropic and though it may be real, there is no proof that its worsening will be a sustained one.

“We are against censorship.” You feed the mind rubbish, you’ll have rubbish thoughts. Humans are by nature evil. But you can teach humans to learn how to do evil things(‘method of evil’). I am not for strict censorship but mild forms of censorship are necessary at times.

“supports a gradual decriminalization of all drugs”.
I cannot agree with you on this.
“Drugs” should be licensed and administered by medical professionals only. “Recreational” use of these drugs should not be allowed. Alcohol and tobacco are bad for health and should be campaigned against. These both should be characterized as ‘drugs’ and comparing them with marijuana, LSD and esctasy is logical. More teneous is comparing these substances to ‘fat, sugar and salts’ – these substances are physiologically needed for health : excessive amounts is the problem, not the substance itself. Campaign against bad, unhealthy diet rather than putting these substances on the same pedestal as ‘recreational drugs’. Marijuana, LSD, esctacy and many ‘recreational drugs’ are not physiologically needed in healthy human beings. Substances not physiologically needed but with potentially adverse ‘side effects’ should be under the care of health professionals only(who know the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these substances). Apart from the ‘positive’effects of ‘fun’, these ‘drugs’ are associated with serious adverse effects on the user and ultimately on society(the psycho-social negative effects and healthcare costs). Adverse effects of cannabinoids(long term use) : pulmonary tree abnormalities, laryngitis, rhinitis, chronic obstructive airway disease(ie emphysema, chronic bronchitis), ECG abnormalities, low sperm count, ovulation failure and cognitive impairments among others. LSD – acute episodes can lead to erratic behaviour that may lead to injury/death. Esctacy – sympathomimetic effects in moderate use; if intoxicated: sweating, tachycardia(fast heart rate), high BP. mydriasis(pupils enlarged), hyperactivity and acute brain syndrome(confusion/disorientation). Long term use of esctacy can lead to ‘tolerance’ which include – paranoia, stereotypism, tactile hallucination(eg of insect infestation), psychosis with persecutory hallucination which can lead to aggression. Withdrawal symptoms – depression(with suicide ideation), hyperphagia(abnormally eating a lot) and hypersomnia(excessive sleeping). And of course these ‘recreational’ drugs have the problem of dependency. The use of these ‘drugs’ should be regulated only in pathophysiology(ie in illness state) and not to be used as ‘recreation’ in otherwise ‘healthy’ individuals.

Some of my disagrements with your views. Thanks.

Sino-tibetan.

Sorry, but this is what it came across as.

People like Šmits look to Russia for their brand of intolerance. Much of the venom towards LGBT rights in Latvia is Russian and/or pro-Russian.

While indeed Gay Pride parades were permitted in 2005 and 2007, they were not in 2006 and marchers were beaten by police and religious nutjobs/nationalists. How can you be sure that next year a conservative mayor will not ban the march out of a ‘desire not to offend some groups’ and will NOT be overturned by the judiciary?

But OK, I admit that Latvia’s First Party, with support at 8.6% in 2007, was a lot lower than in 2002 when it was at 9.5% in 2002, despite merging with the Latvian Way that had c.5% support.

I also admit I was mistaken about Romania – its not in the same league as Russia (or Latvia or Poland). I must have been thinking of some news item or another where ultra-Orthodox nutjobs pelted the Bucharest march with eggs.

Sorry about the mistake with the second link — here is the correct link.

My point wasn’t to try to measure whether Russians or Latvians are more homophobic (or to deny that there are plenty of indigenous homophobes — there are, and New Generation isn’t entirely Russian, either), but was with regard to what Mozaika says above — the pride parade was permitted last summer, and there was no serious violence. The parade in Moscow was not permitted, and there was serious violence. Šmits, quoted at the link above, explicitly praised Russia and its anti-Western stance in his tirades about “values.”

Regarding LPP, now LPP/LC (it merged with Latvia’s Way, which used to be a liberal party) — its support isn’t wholly or even mostly evangelical or religious, either. It’s a populist party, and like 2 of the other parties in the governing coalition — it’s an oligarch’s party. LPP’s attempt to make “family values” a central issue in the American style didn’t meet with much success, as the results of last fall’s elections showed.

By the way, pride events do take place legally in Romania, despite violence, and that country has made considerable progress with regard to LGBT rights.

You quote the same article twice, btw.

I will address it on your site. Suffice to say, it takes a Russophobic slant (something you seem to instinctively), ignoring the fact that according to your own sources (http://www.ilga-europe.org/europe/guide/country_by_country/latvia/riga_pride_2006/welcome_to_the_new_generation) the Russophonic New Generation party consists of less than 1% of the Russian-Latvian population (assuming all its members are Russians) and that there is plenty of native Latvian involvement in gay-baiting too – in the form of Latvia’s First Party, which is mentioned in your article.

Some interesting conclusions can be made.

Firstly, a homophobic, ‘pro-family’ party, one of whose members insinuated gays should be killed, got 9.5% of the vote in Latvia.

(There is no Russian equivalent of a religious/evangelical based party. While Rodina included some fundie elements, they constituted a tiny fraction even of Rodina’s c.10-15% support. Oh and before you start whining about Russian democracy, consider that the situation was the same in the “free” 1990′s.)

Secondly, you absolutely NEED to throw in something Russophobic.

You can look at it in another way. Russians are so despised and denigrated in Latvia that the only section of Latvian society willing to embrace them are the religious nutjobs.

But back to your point about comparative LGBT attitudes in eastern Europe. Yes, in Latvia gay pride march went ahead and was banned in Moscow in 2007.

But, they weren’t allowed in 2006 (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2006/07/latvia_attacks_gays_trashes_de.html) violently attacked. It was allowed in 2005 and 2007, but was the exception rather than the rule, as I understand it, since these last 15 years – like in Russia.

Latvia was the last country in the European Union to introduce anti-discrimination laws dealing with sexual orientation (2006). Ironically, Russia beat it to that milestone by a year (2005). Galling?

According to Wikipedia, support amongst Russians for gay marriage is 14%, compared with Latvia’s 12%.

The Poles are also homophobic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6463213.stm Warsaw bans its gay marches and participants are pelted with objects. Same goes for Rumania.

You are not going to convince me with this that the situation with regards to LGBT rights is qualitatively any different in Latvia or Poland than in Russia.

On the other hand, it is an interesting viewpoint on the Russophobic mind which seeks to heap all the world’s ills onto Russia and Russians. In your particular case here, it is the pot calling the other pot black.

“Unfortunately, LGBT rights are weak in Russia – as in the rest of Visegrad/eastern Europe.”

And — comparatively? Indeed, there are a lot of problems on this score in Latvia, as I’ve observed here and here.

The gay pride parade did take place here last summer, though — the courts worked, and freedom of assembly prevailed.

People like Šmits look to Russia for their brand of intolerance. Much of the venom towards LGBT rights in Latvia is Russian and/or pro-Russian.

It is a bit too too socialist and ‘conspiratorial’ for our liking, but it no double makes a lot of good points – illustrating Putin’s massive degree of domestic support (which has increased even as his approval ratings fell in the West), the positive direction in which Russia is heading under him and the ignorance or malevolence of Western foreign policy and media elites.

True, it makes a lot of unsourced claims and assigns dark motives to whole categories of people and institutions (e.g. US NGOs), but that is no different from what the Western media does repeatedly to Russia’s government.

In other words it qualifies as being part of Our Antithesis, i.e. of Da Russophile.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman

/publish/article_2711.shtml

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2711.shtml