|
Metrilenkki posted:From what I understand, the gender neutral marriage law has most to do with the fact that Finland has a state church, Off-topic, but I have to point out that this is incorrect. Finland used to have a state-church long ago but the two have been separated for at least a hundred years if I remember it right.  There are of course still special ties between the church and the state but their existence is mostly just a matter of convinience. The church used to be the institution that kept track of people when the state was still in its infancy (I couldn't find a proper translation for "väestökirjanpito") and since the vast majority of the Finns still belong to that same church it only makes sense not to do that bookkeeping twice. Same goes for the upkeep of cementaries. The state compensates monetarily for these two matters, although they're still net loss for the church when you count it in euros. Vice versa, because the church is so large, the state collects the church tax at the same time it does the other taxing and the church compensates for the collection expenses.
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
My goodness that map is beyond idiotic from a small town point of view around where I live. For example police response time in acute emergencies (assault, DUI, violent robberies and life threatening situations in general) is already around 50 minutes at some places. I personally don't have it so bad but I still need a car to visit doctor on most of the days or to visit KELA or police office ever, unless I use the entire day to travel by bus for 30 kilometres. And I live in the town centre. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Savings can be made by closing all local police stations. The police can spend the entire shift in the patrol car, they can do the paperwork with laptops on wireless internet, after the shift is over they wake up the two other cops sleeping in the trunk of the Mondeo. If they have to arrest someone, they can call a cab to take him to Helsinki. Brilliant. I think we've uncovered where the guys in charge of the planning of this recieve their ideas. IT WAS YOU ALL ALONG! 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:By the way, are you gonna substantiate yur earlier claim that being gay is a privileged position in finnish politics? I'm not trying to answer in behalf of Ligur (how could I?) but at least I got the impression that he was actually ridiculing the idea of only voting because of a sexual orientation, whatever it is. I mean, I follow politics and news daily and even I couldn't have said anything about Mr. Toivola (who Ligur brought up as an example) during the previous elections - other than: "He's the jovial gay guy from Idols, right?" Or in case of Guzenina-Richardson in the past: "She's that good-looking MTV host, right?" It happens all the time that people vote someone just because of a familiar face and because the candidate shares something in common with them and has a good public image. It doesn't take much votes to get in the parliament in Finland so you don't have to be likeable to the majority. If you get a minority on the move, it's perfectly enough. I mean, look at Teuvo Hakkarainen. There's no need to be privileged. I think it's a safe bet that many did vote for Toivola because of the "gay" part rather than the "Idols" part. And also for Haavisto because of the "gay" part and not because of the "green" part. And Niinistö because of "straight" part.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No, it's not a safe bet that a substantial part of voters vote for a candidate because he or she is gay. Furthermore, acting as if it is a wash whether a candidate is gay or not is a poor attempt to deny the real problem, i.e. the widespread homophobia in society. Um... Okay, I confess I don't know the exact meaning of the word "wash" here. I'm sorry but you have to clarify this for me. Are you saying that a) of the 4174 people who voted for Toivola, practically no-one did it because he's gay b) if the sexual oriantation of the person you're voting is irrelevant to you, it is a weak attempt to deny the existence of homophobia? (Please also note that I have no interest in "winning" a conversation here. Your earlier post simply left me confused if we really understood Ligur's text so differently and that's why I meddled in the conversation.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Looks like the ministry of defense is going to purchase "combat tested" aerial combat drones from Israel for 17 million euros. Not only that, they've agreed to keep further details a secret. Combat tested = properly air-conditioned with small holes throughout the drones?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
Bensa posted:The problem with Wallin is that while what he's done with his real-estate deals might be completely legal and done without any sort of backroom dealing, a person with his standing in political circles should realize what its going to look like. Its similar to the expenses scandal in the UK. As a public figure you should really think about what you're doing and not go along just because its the accepted practice. While that is certainly true, I'm a bit cynical here. If you sell an apartment, you usually don't buy it back 8 years later accidentally without realizing it's the same apartment and that you're paying 170 000 euros more than you got from it. Especially if the other guy is actually not an other guy at all but one of your guys.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Wait, you are joking, right? SuomiTV's licence was bought by them, or something along those lines.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I find it appealing to maintain some degree of religious & lifestance education in schools - when it's provided by public schools it's at least limited by legislation. When fundy parents send their spawn to Christian schools and Islamic madrassas or homeschool them, those kids are hosed for life and there's very little that the society can do about it. I have to agree with you here: both general and denominational education are needed to understand the world and oneself. One of the bishops held a speech concerning the matter. It's basically the same thing Nenonen says here, emphasizing the fact that while the general religion education is absolutely necessary to understand the world, only understanding the essence of one's own religion and it's concept of sacrecy really enables one to understand and emphatize the concept of sacrecy of other religions too. To use a bad analogy I just made on the spot, at least for me learning foreign languages was made a lot easier by using familiar terms and concepts taught on the Finnish language lessons. Also I do remember the last couple of religion courses in the turn of the millenium when I finished up school include healthy amounts of each ethics, different religions and select deeper dives into Lutheran Christianity, which sound about at par with what the government goals are. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
vuohi posted:You know, from this it logically follows that people who aren't religious themselves have no capability to understand sacredness at all. I wasn't supposed to imply that one couldn't understand sacrecy at all without being religious. I was merely trying to translate the essence of the quoted speech while agreeing with the statement that knowing what you yourself believe will probably make understanding different deep beliefs easier. It was a hastily written post, sorry that it was unclear. I don't have any hard facts about it but anecdotal evidence about conversations between people of different world views has taught me that without personal experience the gap between religiously orientated thinking and more mundane way of thinking is sometimes unbelievably difficult to cross even when both sides genuinely want to understand each other. The books that contain letter exchange between the astronomist Esko Valtaoja and bishop emeritus Juha Pihkala are in my opinion a good example and worth reading if you're interested in the discussion. quote:I'd actually say that the matter is completely opposite. Many people who are deeply religious have massive problems understanding how atheists "can be good" as well, if a deity isn't the starting point of all morality. They don't understand either that atheists too can feel that there is something greater than what they themselves are, it's just that it isn't anything supernatural. This is a problem, I fully agree. I'd offer education as a solution.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Wait, I thought that the TF were a bunch of trolls and jokesters whose racist and authoritarian tendencies were just part of the gag, when did they transmogrify into a reaction against a bunch of stadihipsters making fun of forest workers and/or a valve for people who disagree with the general political consensus about anything at all? Transmogrify? Because TF has such a loony right wing I won't be voting them in any parliamentary elections (or possibly in any elections at all, barring perhaps presidential elections but that would depend on the candidate anyway). However, if I ever did, this would be THE reason to do it. The one major thing that has appealed to me from the beginning of their rise is the fact that they seem to be one of the two parties with significant understanding of rural Finland and that other party hasn't exactly been doing stellar work in a long time. In fact I know exactly one TF voter who has any kind of racist or remarkably nationalistic opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I was being sarcastic because Ligur always seems to find some new convoluted explanation as for why the TF are not actually a bunch of racist assholes and/or their enablers but instead something else entirely that only happens to act like racist assholes and/or their enablers. Oh, all right. I haven't been paying that close of an attention.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:This would probably work as an emptyquote as well, but I guess I can add the utilitarian view as well. The amount of money that is spent when there really is no more hope left or the amount of money that is lost because these people never become productive members of society FAR exceeds the petty amount it would cost to get them on their feet when there's still a chance. I guess it doesn't fit into the heads of these politicians who only care about now and usually not even about that. Or they wish that the troublemakers would go somewhere else and become someone else's problem. This pretty much applies to all preventative care. I work with young people myself and it just boggles my mind how youth work is not getting more money despite that being one of the main election promises. Or more specifically some things get more money, while there are budget cuts being made elsewhere. Can't remember the party but I do remember it did get into government. One worker doing the searching(?) youth work (etsivä nuorisotyö) has a salary of very roughly about 2000 euros/month. She can handle quite a few people, because those people aren't unable to help themselves yet, once they get someone to work with them. The care of one child who has been taken into custody costs 250-450e A DAY PER CHILD. And there's a constant need for more of these services. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Not that the news have reached elsewhere: In Christian Laestadianist communities up north, women are essentially seen as baby making machines - since babies are seen as "gifts from god" - which explains their high birth rates. Some women have even died because they've birthed too much. But since the peer-pressure in the group is so big (what with God mandating in putting more buns in their ovens), there's usually no room to say "no". So while it's essentially not rape, your individual opinion is more or less sidelined with the community's will. Far be it from me to lash out against a legitimate worry. The entire thing is a matter to be taken seriously and I'm sure it has occationally and even too often caused problems (to say the least). However... I don't mean to belittle you but how many laestadian families do you know personally? I don't know many but those I do know definitely do not fit in the picture you're painting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:None at all. The cases I described are more from the more stricter conservative groups I've read. Is that acceptable in the area of religious freedom? I really can't say. Fair enough. I admit the ones I know aren't from the dominantly laestadian areas either, where the possible peer pressure would be higher.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Completely unrelated to politics: peaceful 95th birthday, Finland!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5zg_af9b8c That was so worth watching. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Inspector Detector posted:I don't think the True Finns are an explicitly racist party along the lines of the Republicans here but the very notion of what a "true Finn" would be sets off a lot of red flags to me as a foreigner. I feel that the translation of Perussuomalaiset to True Finns was badly thought out. It sounds a bit goofy and it's not really precise either but the original is closer to "basic Finns" or "ordinary Finns". Of course, the original does allow the slightly racist undertone that's present in "True Finns" too but the first time it came in my mind was when I heard what the official translation is. So as a native speaker I could say that whatever views some parts of their voters or even members might hold, the Finnish name is neutral. If anything it's for ordinarity and against elitism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
konna posted:Well yes and traditionally women couldn't vote. Tradition isn't exactly a good argument. When the general tendency in the thread seems to be aggressive arguing, lashing out, name-calling and buying each other insulting avatars, I've been refraining from posting at all. And please, do note that I don't actually take a stance in any issue under discussion. I want to comment on the above, though. Tradition might not be the best of arguments but it might explain a lot about many people. Many pages back when there was discussion about the use of the word "neekeri", something tickled my memory a bit and it happened again now. Using the vote example: what if the word "vote" had originally meant the right for men to express their political views? Then, logically, women couldn't vote. You could try to redefine the word to mean, well, voting, period. Heck, it may be that for you the only relevant part of the meaning of that word ever was the expressing of political views. That's not the same for everyone, though. Those other people would be, possibly confusedly, opposed to the women's right to vote - not out of malice or ill will but because "it just can't be so". That example might have been too far-fetched, though I hope it helped someone, so I'll just say what I mean: I have a fair bit of sympathy and understanding, regardless of my own stance, to some of those who oppose the same-sex marriage and I feel that vilifying or insulting everyone with that opinion is unfair and creates hostility where there's none originally. One politician described his opinion well in a radio interview a few days ago: his biggest problem with the same-sex marriage was that gays just cannot marry. Adoption or fertility treatments or other things like that are separate issues. The current debate is quite strictly about marriage. For him, the definition of the word "marriage" is "a union between a man and a woman". For very many people the problem is the same, I assume. Same-sex unions are a very, very new thing and while some people might not associate any gender to the word "marriage", many do. Or take my grandfather, who commonly uses the word "neekeri". He was born in Africa and lived there the first years of his life. Black people are normal to him. In fact, I suspect that calling people black would be more racist for him. He's not stupid or demented by any means and having done his career as a teacher I doubt he's ignorant of the current meaning of the word either. I haven't asked but I imagine that condemning the use of "neekeri" was (is?) both spoiling a perfectly neutral word while subtly suggesting that the user of the word hates black people. I'm not sure if I get my point across but the thing is, you don't have to be hostile towards gays to have the scale weighed so that you oppose same-sex marriage. Treating all opponents with hostility might actually make some ( = those who are more or less indifferent but slighly against or at least uncomfortable with the words used) hostile to the issue. If your reaction or response to my post is something along the lines of "But they're just words?  ", I'm not sure how to describe it better. I can understand that reaction but can only say that words are rarely "just words". For some the re-defining of "marriage" would actually make the word and concept meaningless. Tradition might not be the best argument but it's a good explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:They are that or they are ignorant. There isn't a middle ground. Racism and discrimination born out of ignorance is still racism and discrimination and I really don't give a flying gently caress behind the cause of their poo poo ways, to be honest. You don't have the right to deny people their civil rights because "back then those people wouldn't have been allowed to do that!" or the right to call people names because "back then it just meant a black person!" "Back then" has been used to justify anything from slavery to anti-miscegenation laws to not letting women vote. Now it's being used to deny right to marriage and apparently throwing out racial slurs casually. Same poo poo, different year. I'm not necessarily arguing with you about the actual issue but I think understanding each other and being able to live in peace with each other despite differences of opinion is so important to me that I'll point out one another thing. Being able to marry whoever you want regardless of gender isn't technically a civil right. It has never been allowed in Finland so far. For you it might self-evidently be case of denying a civil right but for many the question is if being able to marry a person of any gender is a civil right in the first place. I'm fairly certain that the way you phrase your opinion isn't going to turn many hearts to your side. I'm not claiming that there aren't ignorant or even malicious people but "back then" can in some cases be counted in single-digit years. For some that "back then" is on this very decade. I'm not sure it's reasonable to accuse people of not being able to conform in a new way of thinking that fast.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I'm pretty drat certain that if we suddenly stopped letting people marry at all, most everybody would suddenly think that it's a civil right. Exactly. For the people I tried to describe marriage is a civil right. And for them marriage as a word and concept means a union between man and woman and, to be fair, that's the only kind of union the law had ever recognised until the possibility to register your same-sex relationship. And those relationships aren't called marriages either. So that's what I meant with the same-sex marriage technically not being civil right. The current law still makes a difference between "marriage" and "registered relationship", suggesting that the former means it's between different sexes. So from one point of view (DarkCrawler's, for example) the thing going on in the parliament is an attempt to end a discriminating policy while from another point of view (for example the politician I referred to earlier and whose name escapes me right now) it's an attempt to redefine what marriage even means.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
konna posted:I made two very insignificant modifications to your argument. It is still very clearly an appeal to tradition. Fancying it up to a full length paragraph does not make it any less so. I didn't say I disagree with you. Appealing to tradition is a strong argument only if the representatives were arguing for or against of changing the national anthem, for example. This issue is about well-being of people so tradition as an argument is very weak at best. To put my entire point in one single sentence: It might help understanding those with a different opinion if you realised that for them "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron. DarkCrawler posted:Since the dawn of time conservatives have to be dragged kicking and screaming to being a little bit less awful to their fellow human beings, after decades of and decades of trying to convince why their opinions are horrible, and I would just love it if we would skip over those decades for once. I mean, it won't happen but I won't personally waste my time. I'm with you there. Sometimes you just gotta force a change and ignore those who don't understand how the change is good and not bad. However... DarkCrawler posted:I don't really want to pretty up my words for the bigots. quote:They have awful opinions. quote:gently caress them for not moving up with the times. Being respectful and non-hostile towards those with a different opinion neither costs anything nor hurts anyone. What irks me is that I know several people whose stance towards the issue is very confused. They're very decent people who often try hard to be good and respectful. You COULD possibly win them over if you didn't disregard them as bigots, say that their opinions are awful and end with "gently caress them". If you don't want to understand those with a different opinion (I don't blame you if you don't, I'm sure you have your reasons), then I suppose my post wasn't aimed at you. Feel free to ignore me. Oh, except: quote:This is fun! I'm sorry, I don't get what you're aiming at by switching Finland with the US.
Valiantman fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Feb 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
HUMAN FISH posted:In other news, the best candidate won: http://www.hs.fi/kuukausiliite/Pilapiirroskisan+voitto+meni+Hauholle/a1305674721463 That's a good one. I have no trouble figuring out which party is which. In addition that quite handily sums up the current situation in the parliament. 
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 13:10
|
|
|
In completely other news, the Finnish handball league is the manliest there is.Yle News posted:Cocks Dickeniä vahvempi käsisfinaaliavauksessa
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
uncleTomOfFinland posted:I had the same problem so I coded up this: That's the single most convincing thing ever in favour of Chrome. 
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Rurik posted:So the ministry in charge of this country's finances, currently led by Social Democrats, is planning to give up on higher education being free. An annual bill of a thousand euros was proposed, if I recall correctly. Granted, I didn't read the actual report but if even half of that blog text is correct, and I don't see a reason to doubt it... 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
It's not like I want to defend Räsänen very much but I'm still a bit worked up by the stupidity of a few True Finns facebook friends of mine so... I guess I'll end up defending her anyway.  The speech where that part was quoted from was about several things, some of you might be for and some against of. The main subjects were the damaging effects of hedonism and selfishness to us, both as a society and as individuals, and encouragement to live as a Christian even if the general opinion might be against your way of life. Of course, if you're not a Christian or not familiar with the Bible, much of the speech probably doesn't carry much weight but my point here is that that quote is greatly out of context. Mountain out of a molehill, really. As far as I see it, Räsänen is:
The thing is, she isn't:
In fact, she mentions the civil disobedience in connection with a list of things you might have to resort to if you're forbidden from spreading the gospel (in it's actual core meaning: your sins are forgiven). Even there it's the ultimate example. She clarifies in the HS article that CAT rear end now!!! linked, that the laws in Finland do not meet the criteria for ignoring them. To be clear, I don't agree with Räsänen with all she says and I do think that the Minister of Interior shouldn't even mention disobeying the law as a potential solution (no matter how extreme) but I'm getting annoyed when, if she says anything, the default Internet Response is that she's talking out of her rear end, she's a horrible human being, completely incompetent and should not be listened at all in any matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
konna posted:Räsänen's speech was nothing out of the ordinary and I wasn't horrified by it. Normal stuff by her. But your analysis is incorrect and the hs.fi reporting was spot on. She is clearly laying out what god wanted from a man, what are christian values and the sanctity of life. Then she coyly suggests that christians face situations where on must decide whether to respect the law or god. The disobeying the law bit IS NOT just about spreading the gospel. She's using it as one positive example where disobedience was justified. To further reinforce the point she quotes Luther that if you must anger god or an earthly institution you should stick it up to the government. I don't see how that contradicts what I said. That's what I got ot of it, too. The positive example she used was the biblical story about Moses where two midwives refused to kill the newborn boys and she also hinted at Nazi Germany when talking about euthanasia. I'm not sure how that even can be linked to the situation in Finland today and, frankly, she was very fast to clear that up when the first headlines sprang up. I mean, I have a hard time imagining how to even be disobedient about the ethical issues she brought up - namely abortion, euthanasia and gender-neutral marriage. The first is strictly regulated and the latter two are illegal. Even if the legislation was loosened, refusing from either is not much of a statement. She is okay with the legislation about all of them, with the caveat that a doctor should be able to refuse from personally performing an abortion without losing their job if someone else can do it, like everywhere else in Europe, except Sweden. Besides, she was talking to people that were doing illegal missionary work in the 80s by smuggling Bibles in the Soviet Union and assisting whatever small parishes there were in Karelia. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
konna posted:But she is "connecting" civil disobedience with gender neutral marriage and gay adoption. She's not saying that christians should stick it to the government right this moment. Her wording suggests that if it were the case that god's and man's laws clash - which may or may not have happened at this point - one must decide whether you should ignore what the earthly institutions are saying. Okay, apparently it is possible to read it like that, then. I'm still saying it's not her making the connection. I would say an interpretation like that is a result of either prejudiced reading or poor reading comprehension but you obviously have read the speech and think it's that way so I can't really argue against your interpretation. I don't want to accuse you of laziness so perhaps we can settle for a poorly thought out portion of speech by her, on which media then jumped on? Here's the entire paragraph for those who haven't read the speech: Päivi Räsänen at Kansanlähetyspäivät posted:Kaikilla meillä on varmasti tullut eteen tilanteita, joissa joudumme miettimään, rohkenemmeko toimia vastoin yleistä mielipidettä tai normia, porukan painetta tai joskus jopa lakia, jos nämä ovat Jumalan sanan vastaisia. Apostolien teoissa kerrotaan tilanne, jossa viranomaiset kielsivät apostoleja saarnaamasta Jeesuksesta. Silloin apostoli Pietari ja muut apostolit sanoivat: "Enemmän tulee totella Jumalaa kuin ihmisiä." (Ap.t. 5:29). He jatkoivat työtään kielloista huolimatta. That's the only mention of disobeying the law and it's linked to missionary work. If you read the surrounding paragraphs, Luther quotes and all, there's nothing that's not on general level. Yes, she's a Minister of Interior and she shouldn't mentioning not obeying the laws. No, I don't think she's advocation for disobedience of whatever laws you find to be morally wrong. The examples she cited were really extreme. quote:They have this bizarre habit of trying to contradict themselves within the shortest possible time span. Unrelated but I don't follow. Could you please elaborate? (Not wanting to argue, I honestly don't understand you there.) edit: With something else than the homosexual example. I don't want to open that can of worms here. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
konna posted:It's really obvious that she's just not talking about prosthelytizing. She's using a specific example of the apostles ignoring an order, in their time, that prohibited the spreadin of gospel. It is an example of the highlighted (my highlight) sentence "Kristillinen seurakunta on kaikkina aikoina joutunut elämään ristiriidassa ajan henkeä vastaan tavalla tai toisella." And now, in our time, there are other actions that are required of us to fulfill the will of god. Your interpretation is incorrect. I don't get it. It's the same interpretation as far as I can see. Edit: To rephrase: no, she isn't talking only about prosthelytizing (what a word to write...) but she's not advocating breaking the laws at whim or suggesting about replacing Finnish Law with the Bible like some people who luckily are not present here want to see it. Basically, this guy (I don't know who he is, don't hang me if he's some kind of a horrible extreme religious fundamentalist racist terrorist) has the same angle that I do. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
konna posted:Ok, she's not advocating a bible thumping theocracy where people are stoned. If somebody claims that he's wrong. But she's advocating, in her speech, civil disobedience that would be in line with her brand of ev.lut. christianity = restrict human rights but don't be a raving lunatic about it. Heck, all those posts and it was a different part of her speech that you disagreed with. We're good, I suppose. (Curious observation: she says she advocating for equality of people and sanctity of life and you see her advocating for discrimination and inequality. Language sometimes makes things so hard. Why can't we all just be telepaths? Where are vorlons when you need them?)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:What bizarro universe is it in which Päivi Räsänen advocates for equality? She's a supporter of 'traditional marriage' precisely because it puts a woman into her right place, just below her husband. Delenda est feminism. Homosexuality is an illness that children need to be protected from. Christian asylum seekers should be given preference over pagans. The sensitivities of Christians should be our foremost concern in all matters in general, whether it is about abortion or yoga (eek, oriental mind poisons!). She's a bigot and a woman hater. Excuse me but you misread me. I find it curious that what someone calls equality and valuing human life above all, another calls discrimination and violation of human rights. I didn't say I agree with either. But now that you brought it up, I'm not sure where you find her saying that woman is below her husband? The others I've heard, sure, but that's a new one for me. I know the Bible verses you refer to, but I've never heard anyone as educated as she is interpreting them in any other way than "man and woman are different but equal". And since I apparently started playing her attorney, I might as go all the way and point out that she said homosexuality to be a disorder and not an illness. Yeah, that might be semantics and pointless nitpicking in everyday conversation but she's a doctor so I'm fairly sure there's a world of difference for her between those two words. In addition, she spoke about euthanasia and abortion a lot. Apparently those are ignored? I feel I should add again that I'm not behind everything she says and my motivation is solely the fact that I'm sick of everything bad in the world being projected onto her when there are real things she can be criticized on. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
konna posted:For example, in her speech she lays out what god's will is for marriage and then goes on to say homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, adopt kids and any gender identity, other than straight, is a sin. That is discrimination to a T. Furthermore, she clearly states that we should ponder what values are opposed to god's laws and not to just "go with the flow". She is most definitely not condemning unlawful actions but justifying this disobedience by quoting Paul and Luther. Right, let me be extremely clear: I get what you are saying. You don't have to convince me. I get what she's saying. You don't have to tell me that either. I simply found resemblance between how we read into each other's posts more than the other intended and how Räsänen says she means good and you say she means evil. I'm not being sarcastic or passive-aggressive, I simply found that curious (excuse my Finnish, mielenkiintoinen) in the innocent sense of the word. I'm easily fascinated by the barriers that language creates for our understanding of each other's words. edit: hrmh, it seems you were responding to Ligur and not me. Sorry, I forgot he made that one post there. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Hey great because if we have to pay more for luxury things like electricity and fuel we will have more money over to spend on the goddamn economy. Well, you are spending more. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:SDP haven't been a leftist party by any reasonable standard for over ten years now, though. Arguably even longer. Lipponen was more to the right than most of the NC. Rexroom posted:Speaking of NC, their youth organization has published their draft of agendas in their upcoming meeting in Tampere this month. In their program: You missed the right for the health care workers to whip out the alcometer for you to blow into if you apply for a sick leave and making religion lessons in school unavailable for immigrants (unless they participate in lessons about religions not their own).  I'd really, really love to read the reasoning behind the winter tires things, though. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Ligur posted:What is "society taxation" anyway? Yhteisövero, I suppose. quote:Foreign aid on the other hand has been a complete waste of money since the 60s, benefiting none of the poor it supposedly would help and in the long term dooming whole countries into a permanent downward spiral of aid dependency, and since it's very expensive while achieving none of the goals it's supposed to, you should very well shut it down. Especially if you can only afford it by taking huge loans that gently caress your own economy even further, thereby multiplying misery instead of alleviating it. Send food trains to a location of famine? Not a bad idea. But paying annual fees to governments who only wish to remain in power is pretty loving stupid if you pretend to do good, unless you happen to work for the government in question or one of the multpile organizations which dispense this "aid" in which case you of course want more of this largesse. I'm not necessarily contesting you here but that sounds a lot like bad "gently caress-you-got-mine" populist rhetoric, along the lines of "not everything is going as planned so let's cancel it all". Would you have any statistics or percentages showing that aiding those in need doesn't actually accomplish that?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Ligur posted:about foreign aid. Thank you for those two book suggestions. I'm not sure I'm able to find them in the local small library but I'll check it out the next time I visit there. I agree with you that not everything we call aid really helps. Much may be inefficient or may be poorly supervised and end up strengthening dictators or corrupt officials. Focusing on global results does miss my point, however. It feels a bit unfair towards you to seemingly ignore much of what you posted but it seems to miss the mark somewhat. I'm sorry I failed to specify it but what I feel we need to know before thinking of cutting foreign aid is how the Finnish foreign aid is directed, specifically. We can't change how foreign aid globally works, only how our small portion it works. If we direct our aid poorly, as described in those books, then that's a strong reason to re-evaluate how we aid others. But what if we manage our aid better that described there? I don't know if we do so I choose to trust those whose job it is. You'd really need some data concerning Finnish foreign aid to criticize Finnish foreign aid. You first said that Koski campaining to stop foreign aid (according to Rexroom) is a good thing but then you softened it by saying that we should examine our methods of aiding critically. If the latter is what you mean, then we have much common ground. Saying that you should stop aiding someone makes you sound like an rear end in a top hat for a reason, however: it is morally wrong not to aid. Wanting to aid efficiently is another thing, not wanting to make an effort is assholish.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 10:24
|
|
|
Our spending is definitely out of control. It's beyond ridiculous. I don't envy those who have to make the decisions and, exactly as you say, it's impossible to be a good guy in that position. We are spending a lot on foreign aid if you compare different items in the budget, yellow press style, but it's still only 0.53% of GDP. How does that make it right to stop trying to help people in even worse conditions? Finland is already one of the richest countries in the world, despite all the hardships. When are we rich enough that we can start caring about people outside Finland again, then? edit: bleh, wrote in haste and made a mistake in the percentage Valiantman fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
HUMAN FISH posted:On the other hand it's also 11% of the extra debt we're taking. Made an error there. It's 0.53% of GDP when the stated goal is 0.7%. Yes, it's a lot of cash. 1.1 billion to be precise.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Internet filtering news. The Finnish equivalent of the supreme court has made a decision on the issue of police filtering a website critical of said Internet filtering. This has been a long five year legal battle where on the one side is freedom of speech and on the other side: The Children. And who won? The Children, of course. I'm not at all familiar with the case. Am I correct that the site in question had a list of sites blocked the filter? What's the big deal and what buddies are being protected? HUMAN FISH posted:I'd say it's pretty loving clear we can't afford it, since we're taking 9 billion more debt. That's like saying we can't afford our student loan guarantees because they also cost something in the ballpark of 1.5 billion. Valiantman fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Ligur posted:Sigh, no it isn't, WHY ARE PEOPLE SO OBTUSE ON PURPOSE AAARRRRGH. You say that if we cannot afford something, then we cannot afford anything. No no no. Jesus. You don't want to let go of the idea that foreign aid is awesome, why? It shouldn' be a matter of pride to you, and occasionally being wrong on the internet is fine, I often am. Hold on, I'm on the same page and I agree with you. We need to prioritize. I didn't say we can't afford something, the guy I quoted said it and I thought it was a dumb thing to say: Cutting out a random part of the budget without a reason. I also agreed with you that Finnish foreign aid might (or might not but that's irrelevant in this case) currently be inefficient and it's worth checking out. What I don't agree with is that the solution is to stop foreign aid altogether. That's not right. Finland is already one of the richest countries in the world, despite all the hardships. When are we rich enough that we can start caring about people outside Finland again, if we now stop the aid?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 13:32
|
|