fiyah pon pink diplomacy

[trelawnysmall]

Re: fiyah pon pink diplomacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote]
<span style="font-weight: bold">
BTW, going after the adulterers and fornicators in Jamaica would effectively wipe out - I would estimate - more than 80% of Jamaica's population.
</span>
</div></div>

true, true, sad to say

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: fiyah pon pink diplomacy

It is also true for most countries.
Yet they all have their prejudices and nobody is making a big fuss over them. I ma sure that more blacks are killed in other countries because they are black, then homosexuals killed by <span style="font-weight: bold">non-homosexuals</span> in Jamaica simply because they are gay. everybody and their dying racist relatives are trying to prove that the man who lived in the country for over 40 years, as an homosexual picking up young boys, was killed by some uncivilized Jamaican because he is homosexual. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TSmall</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote]
<span style="font-weight: bold">
BTW, going after the adulterers and fornicators in Jamaica would effectively wipe out - I would estimate - more than 80% of Jamaica's population.
</span>
</div></div>

true, true, sad to say </div></div>

[trelawnysmall]

Re: fiyah pon pink diplomacy

I am not arguing with this statement. I was agreeing with the previous statement. But I would add to this, incest and pedophilia.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is also true for most countries.
Yet they all have their prejudices and nobody is making a big fuss over them. I ma sure that more blacks are killed in other countries because they are black, then homosexuals killed by <span style="font-weight: bold">non-homosexuals</span> in Jamaica simply because they are gay. everybody and their dying racist relatives are trying to prove that the man who lived in the country for over 40 years, as an homosexual picking up young boys, was killed by some uncivilized Jamaican because he is homosexual. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TSmall</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote]
<span style="font-weight: bold">
BTW, going after the adulterers and fornicators in Jamaica would effectively wipe out - I would estimate - more than 80% of Jamaica's population.
</span>
</div></div>

true, true, sad to say </div></div> </div></div>

[blugiant]

Re: fiyah pon pink diplomacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Iron_Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...just because the constitution of a country dem something to be right does not make it so. </div></div>

hmm, so you're saying that the rights given to people of colour to vote in the United States, for example, <span style="color: #990000">isn't</span> necessarily <span style="color: #990000">a right</span>?

as usual yu no nuo we yu a chat se </div></div>

a yu doan knoo wat yu chatt seh. goo look upp legal meaninn aff rite ann privileges

soo yu still triinn fii advocate fii special rites fii funnee peeps dat y yu tryinn fii twist. yu knoo fii rite numba too yu mekk curve ann twist

[blugiant]

Re: fiyah pon pink diplomacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Calling for a law change to make an act legal even if it is violent is far from advocating violence.
Since every country has on their books violent acts that can be legally done against others.
</span>
making such a comment is simply normal civilized interaction. </div></div>

It amounts to the advocacy of violence because it seeks a violent measure (killing by stoning) in response to the 'infraction' of some law that is clearly unconstitutional, a law which is maintained only due to political cowardice, and no sound legal reasoning. Under an assertive judiciary in Jamaica, using its authority of judicial review, this law would have been struck down a long time ago because of its unconstitutional nature.

I'm searching for a country that legalizes violence as punishment for the violation of a law that is unconstitutional.

In case you're thinking of the death penalty in a number of countries, while compelling arguments can be made (and have been made) about the unconstitutionality of the death penalty, let's be clear: laws against murder or rape, for example, are NOT unconstitutional. In every society murder and rape are against the law. Both violate every constitutional principle in civilized societies.

Criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults, however, violates the constitutional provision of freedom of association, which every civilized society has in place. And that's the nuance lost on you.

In any case, the difference between positive law and natural law usually revolves around the &quot;justice&quot; content - the latter incorporates principles of justice. A law may exist on the books and may even be duly enacted, but it does not mean that it is a just law. As Augustine of Hippo once famously said: &quot;<span style="font-style: italic">Lex iniusta non est lex</span>&quot; (&quot;An unjust law is no law at all.&quot. BTW, this has been the rallying cry of various civil disobedience movements over centuries, including the 20th century with Ghandi in India and the civil rights movement during the 60s. </div></div>

yu knoo yu iss natt de onlee wan pon yah wey luv fii lie bout wat mii poas. yu knoo mii doan bow cah peeps wey read wat mii poas see da trooth

soo yu beeleeve buggeree iss onlee wan &quot;infraction.&quot; yu doan mean wan outfraction cah funnee peeps ave prablem diffentiatinn between exit ann entrance

wat yu cawl political cowardice mii cawl democracee rule aff de majaritee, communitee tandards. de rite aff majaritee fii decide wat affend de moralitee aff dem communitee. realitee iss laws shood bee made bye legislative mechanism dat reflect de will aff de peeps. soo iff de peeps deem homosexualitee moralle repugnant ann compell dii legistlative ann judicaree arm aff de guv rule dat buggeree laws iss cansistent widd dem beeleef ann kulcha den itt constitutional ann just.

sarree freedom aff association doan meen freedom aff <span style="font-weight: bold">[censored]</span>ociation fii buggeree iss legal. y funnee peeps luv fii chatt bout freedon aff association soo much. mii see dat yu doan ave anneeting fii sey bout pink diplomacee even afta de funnee mzungu diplomat wey luv yung blakk bwoys unsavoree canduct inn ja gitt xxpose. soo wan funnee man chattinn bout financinn homosexual movement inn ja den rite afta dat funnee oyinbo pedophile gitt xxposed ann yu tryinn fii defend openinn upp ja soo more oyinbo homosexuals can xxploit jamaica yuths. wat inn da dark gitt lite shine pon itt cah god iss just

yu see mii doan advocate mzungu homosexual minoritee triinn fii force dem dutty abnarmal kulcha pon moaslee blakk countree ann chatt nunsense judasprudece. soo doan baddar chatt nunsense bout sund legal reasoninn wen yu tried fii advocate fii racist death penltee wen yu knoo itt unfairlee targitt blakks ann poor peeps.

mii wandar iff ja still ave public aanginn pon dem book fii criminals ann iff itt wood bee wan effective enforcement tool fii better cantrol homosexualitee inn ja

[Dyoll_73]

Re: fiyah pon pink diplomacy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yu knoo yu iss natt de onlee wan pon yah wey luv fii lie bout wat mii poas.</div></div>

What you post here mostly (with few exceptions, I'll grant) qualify as gibberish, but you must show me what I've lied about, or have ever lied about, regarding what you have posted here. What I said was that you were advocating violence against another group of Jamaicans, and I stated my reason for coming to that conclusion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wat yu cawl political cowardice mii cawl democracee rule aff de majaritee, communitee tandards. de rite aff majaritee fii decide wat affend de moralitee aff dem communitee. realitee iss laws shood bee made bye legislative mechanism dat reflect de will aff de peeps. soo iff de peeps deem homosexualitee moralle repugnant ann compell dii legistlative ann judicaree arm aff de guv rule dat buggeree laws iss cansistent widd dem beeleef ann kulcha den itt constitutional ann just.</div></div>

What you are advocating is not democracy but 'mob rule' - what is often referred to as &quot;the tyranny of a majority.&quot; You have a short and narrow view of history and thus fail to realize that history is replete with examples of how legislative majorities have passed laws that have been inhumane, unjust, and even unconstitutional.

Consider American history since the founding of the republic how laws regulating slavery, and then after slavery, with 'Jim Crow laws', the treatment of Native Americans, just to cite a few examples, were all passed by legislative majorities. Laws preventing inter-racial marriages, where blacks could live, for example, were all passed by majorities and justified on &quot;community standards.&quot; What all these 'democratically' passed laws had in common was that they were all unconstitutional and were ruled as such. Well, you may ask: what took them so long to overturn these laws? The answer is obvious: the laws were made by bigots, and the Supreme Court was mostly made up of bigots, and it took more progressive legislatures and a progressive federal court to overturn them. So while I have respect for the legislative process, I don't buy the superficial argument that simply because a law was passed by a legislature that it is sound; it must ALSO pass constitutional muster.

There's no point going over the &quot;freedom of association&quot; argument with you if you can't understand something as elementary as that. I'll just say it's the reason homosexuality has been decriminalized in even that homosexual paradise in which you live.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">y funnee peeps luv fii chatt bout freedon aff association soo much.</div></div>

Depends on who you're talking about. You claim to speak plainly, so why don't you be specific. I don't know much about the story of the diplomat, except that he was killed. Actually, I haven't even read an article about the story.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... doan baddar chatt nunsense bout sund legal reasoninn wen yu tried fii advocate fii racist death penltee wen yu knoo itt unfairlee targitt blakks ann poor peeps.</div></div>

I know you're not strong on reading comprehension, but I never advocated the death penalty above even though I made reference to it. I oppose the death penalty in every circumstance.

You choose not to live in Jamaica, but in a country where homosexuality is not a crime, and yet you <span style="text-decoration: underline">claim</span> to have such disdain for the behavior. Would you call on your state legislature to pass a law to stone homos, as you have done on this board with respect to Jamaica? Of course not! Despite your much-touted straight talk, you have shown yourself, time after time, to be the biggest hypocrite on this board. You said that what is in the dark will come to light. You are right about that.