NationStates

Vassenor wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:No.


Pretty sure when Desmond was mentioned everyone knows what’s implied.

Use of a random given name can do that?

Ok, you continue on this warped line of thinking while I fuck off.

Leonixion wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Ah, yes, so because pedophiles use the LGBTQ+ community as a shield means that the LGBTQ+ community supports them. Right.



Because clearly everybody and their mother knows about this one specific thing. Right.

Big drag queens made shows with him.

Which doesn't mean shit.

Regardless, this is still a threadjack of the actual topic.

Leonixion wrote:

Arcturus Novus wrote:Bold of you to assume that we gays are all okay with that. No one should be profiting off child exploitation.

If your main concern is about the money and the child work and not the fact that he's in bars, twerking in front of grown ups, in an environment filled with drugs and abusers, I can't do anything for you.

Unsure what you're trying to call Arcturus Novus out for here. They made a statement against child exploitation and you kinda just glossed over that and came back with "If your main concern is child exploitation and not the fact of where the child is being exploited, I can't do anything for you."

At least, that's what your response reads as.

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Use of a random given name can do that?

Ok, you continue on this warped line of thinking while I fuck off.

So how are we supposed to know they were on about that specific person when they just drop a given name without context?

Necroghastia wrote:I have no idea what you people are talking about, tbqh.

Welcome to our brave new world https://youtu.be/X7J-hW_GO6o

Leonixion wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You never said anything about children.

Learn to read. They said Desmond.

Gonna have to step in to say there are a lot of Desmonds in the world, odds are most of them are adults and odds are some of them dance in bars.

I've added the quote from the Reuters article to the OP in hopes to ease some confusion.

Reuters wrote:This would make violence against LGBT+ people a crime and make it illegal to deny access to education or jobs, to refuse service in stores, or to bar LGBT+ people from public buildings.

Reuters

Totally Not OEP wrote:In a just world, there'd be U.S. Marines in Rio right now taking them out in cuffs and head coverings.

No.

War is a horrible atrocity. Invading over this court ruling would be a mindless slaughter for both sides.

Kannap wrote:I've added the quote from the Reuters article to the OP in hopes to ease some confusion.

Reuters wrote:This would make violence against LGBT+ people a crime and make it illegal to deny access to education or jobs, to refuse service in stores, or to bar LGBT+ people from public buildings.

Reuters

It still won't be at all enforced, due to the culture of brazil.

The South Falls wrote:

Kannap wrote:I've added the quote from the Reuters article to the OP in hopes to ease some confusion.

It still won't be at all enforced, due to the culture of brazil.

I kind of came here just to say that once I've noticed this thread. Having a law is nice and I think it might actually catch some asshats but I don't think it'll be enforced the way it should.

It's usually such small pebbles that start the avalanche. Bolsonaro is toast.

Totally Not OEP wrote:In a just oppressive and just terrible world, there'd be U.S. Marines in Rio right now taking them out in cuffs and head coverings.

FTFY.

Can anyone inform me of the brazil court decision with concrete stuff? i just notice it

.

Dontriptia wrote:How is this court just allowed to create its own law? This isn't democracy, it's oligarchy. Just another example of how the left only pretends to care about democracy and is totally okay with minority rule when it achieves their objectives (just like Roe v. Wade, Brexit, and gay marriage in the US)

So why is saying it is illegal to kill LGBT people for being LGBT so controversial?

Also I didn't know Brexit was a US thing.

Dontriptia wrote:How is this court just allowed to create its own law? This isn't democracy, it's oligarchy. Just another example of how the left only pretends to care about democracy and is totally okay with minority rule when it achieves their objectives (just like Roe v. Wade, Brexit, and gay marriage in the US)

The Highest Possible Court in a country's Judiciary is generally allowed to set precedents in how "specific cases" can go. This isn't even the form of Constitutionalism the US is most famous for. It's literally one of the most common procedures in Law, Even in countries that don't use a Precedent-based Legal system and instead prefer Civil Codes. This isn't anything out of ordinary, and it is specifically a way to ensure democracy continues to function and not fall into Tyranny, either by minority or by majority, especially when a President threatens to shut down Legislative process by veto (like what the Supreme Court suspected Bolsonaro would do. I guess we'll see if they were right when the Legislature tries it later).

[

[

Dontriptia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So why is saying it is illegal to kill LGBT people for being LGBT so controversial?

Also I didn't know Brexit was a US thing.

That's not what it says, and it has always been illegal to kill "LGBT people", it should be illegal for any reason regardless of whether they are LGBT, and it always has been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Dontriptia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So why is saying it is illegal to kill LGBT people for being LGBT so controversial?

Also I didn't know Brexit was a US thing.

That's not what it says, and it has always been illegal to kill "LGBT people", it should be illegal for any reason regardless of whether they are LGBT, and it always has been.

Then what new law has been created?

Dontriptia wrote:How is this court just allowed to create its own law? This isn't democracy, it's oligarchy. Just another example of how the left only pretends to care about democracy and is totally okay with minority rule when it achieves their objectives (just like Roe v. Wade, Brexit, and gay marriage in the US)

This just in: equal application and protection of the law is actually bad, or something.

Dontriptia wrote:How is this court just allowed to create its own law? This isn't democracy, it's oligarchy. Just another example of how the left only pretends to care about democracy and is totally okay with minority rule when it achieves their objectives (just like Roe v. Wade, Brexit, and gay marriage in the US)

They're not creating a new law, they're saying that existing law covering racism will also be applied to homophobia in the same way.

Ifreann wrote:

Dontriptia wrote:How is this court just allowed to create its own law? This isn't democracy, it's oligarchy. Just another example of how the left only pretends to care about democracy and is totally okay with minority rule when it achieves their objectives (just like Roe v. Wade, Brexit, and gay marriage in the US)

They're not creating a new law, they're saying that existing law covering racism will also be applied to homophobia in the same way.

Now if only the American government could agree present anti-discrimination laws should extend to LGBT persons.

Kannap wrote:

Ifreann wrote:They're not creating a new law, they're saying that existing law covering racism will also be applied to homophobia in the same way.

Now if only the American government could agree present anti-discrimination laws should extend to LGBT persons.

But that won't happen because Jesus.