Russian MPs seek nationwide ban on child beauty pageants - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Deputies representing conservative center and nationalist parties have proposed a bill to ban child participation in beauty pageants and introduce tough fines for lawbreakers. Lawmakers from the United Russia party and the Liberal Democratic party have already submitted the bill to the Lower House, the State Duma press service reported on Friday. The draft outlaws child participation in any event where they will show themselves off and be judged on their appearance, if this could harm the child’s health or development physically, intellectually, psychically,and spiritually. Participation in contests that could potentially lead to corruption of the young is also banned. The authors explained the detailed definition was because they did not want to stop contests for children which do not include being judged by their appearance. The violation of this rule would carry a large fine. Parents or guardians who allow their children to participate in beauty pageants would have to pay from 4000 to 5000 roubles ($114 - $142). Officials who license such events face fines of between 40000 and 50000 ($1140-$1420) and companies organizing them – from 800000 to 1 million roubles ($22800 - $28500). Also a court could order such companies to suspend their work for up to three months. The bill introduces additional punishment for foreigners – apart from fines, foreign citizens can be detained for up to 15 days, and will be deported from the country. The sponsors of the draft said in the explanatory note that similar rules already exist in South Russia’s Krasnodar Region and also in France. In December last year St. Petersburg legislator Vitaly Milonov, known for his staunch anti-gay stance,announced his intention to press for a ban on child beauty pageants in the city. Milonov’s yet unfinished bill will apparently allow participation in beauty pageants only from the age of sixteen. Breaking the rule would be the responsibility of event organizers and of the participants’ parents. When promoting the move the lawmaker said that participation is such contests not only harms the child’s psyche, but also increases the danger of them becoming victims of paedophiles. Commenting on the new federal bill Milonov welcomed the decision as necessary, adding that many specialists claim that the growing number of child beauty pageants [I]“leads to the over 20-fold increase in the number of people suffering from psychic disorders."[/I] [/QUOTE] [URL="http://rt.com/politics/russian-child-pageant-ban-031/"]http://rt.com/politics/russian-child-pageant-ban-031/[/URL]

I have to admit I didn't expect to see a "Russia to ban ..." and agree with their decision wholeheartedly.

I can agree with this considering the amount of shit parents put their kids through in order to win.

Good, the last thing kids need is to be told they have to look a certain way to be acceptable in society.

good child beauty pageants are creepy as shit

My Mum always says that Toddlers and Tiara's is basically paedophile heaven

Finally Russia decides to put forward a ban that actually makes sense.

[quote] The draft outlaws child participation in any event where they will show themselves off and be judged on their appearance, if this could harm the child’s health or development physically, intellectually, psychically,and spiritually. Participation in contests that could potentially lead to corruption of the young is also banned. The authors explained the detailed definition was because they did not want to stop contests for children which do not include being judged by their appearance. [/quote] We really think this, "Think of the children" legislation is fine? We're just going to pat Russia on the back for this? This is how boilerplate fascism works. You pass something 'common sense' and 'nice' that everyone agrees with. You pass something to protect someone that looks vulnerable against some strange threat that exists in our folk psychology but erodes upon personal liberty, then everyone goes "Well, it's just such a [I]good law,[/I] how could it be bad?" Or should we just go ahead to pass & applaud every law that protects children physically, mentally and spiritually?

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910165]We really think this, "Think of the children" legislation is fine? We're just going to pat Russia on the back for this? This is how boilerplate fascism works. You pass something 'common sense' and 'nice' that everyone agrees with. You pass something to protect someone that looks vulnerable against some strange threat that exists in our folk psychology but erodes upon personal liberty, then everyone goes "Well, it's just such a [I]good law,[/I] how could it be bad?" Or should we just go ahead to pass & applaud every law that protects children physically, mentally and spiritually?[/QUOTE] I'm among the first to bash "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?" thinking, but these pageants are seriously harmful and stupid events. There is absolutely nothing good about them, no redeeming quality that can hope to make up for the damage done. I would not be so quick to come to their defence if I were you.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910165]We really think this, "Think of the children" legislation is fine? We're just going to pat Russia on the back for this? This is how boilerplate fascism works. You pass something 'common sense' and 'nice' that everyone agrees with. You pass something to protect someone that looks vulnerable against some strange threat that exists in our folk psychology but erodes upon personal liberty, then everyone goes "Well, it's just such a [I]good law,[/I] how could it be bad?" Or should we just go ahead to pass & applaud every law that protects children physically, mentally and spiritually?[/QUOTE] So you're saying we shouldn't ban parents from derailing their children's lives and making their whole early life focused on winning beauty contests? Because, you know you're never going to get these people to quit what they're doing by telling them it's wrong. Also fyi slippery slope arguments are usually bad arguments.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;43910348]I'm among the first to bash "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?" thinking, but these pageants are seriously harmful and stupid events. There is absolutely nothing good about them, no redeeming quality that can hope to make up for the damage done. I would not be so quick to come to their defence if I were you.[/QUOTE] I'm not defending pageants, I'm defending the personal liberty that dies with them. We have laws against child abuse, and child trafficking, and other things that make sense. However a blanket ban on "appearance based competitions" for children is just insane. Some do enjoy it, some do go on to do something good with it. It's like banning horse racing because it does real and serious harm to whatever special minority you want to protect. (Horses, Jockies, Chronic gamblers.) At some level we have to make our own decisions. Sometimes our own decisions hurt ourselves and others. If I spend all of my money on building a sportsbar, and it bankrupts myself and my family that is bad. But no one should pass a special law against sportsbars to protect against incompetent spending, unless you want to give up a lot of personal liberties. I do not want to give up my liberty to open a sportsbar. Likewise, somewhere some well adjusted family who isn't some monsterous parody on [I]entertainment driven television [/I]probably wants to engage in a pageant. [quote] Also fyi slippery slope arguments are usually bad arguments. [/quote] Slippery slope arguments are bad arguments when you cannot show causation or connection. It's a slippery slope to say "If we ban murder, next we'll ban ice cream." It's not a slippery slope to say, "An authoritarian government who has banned 'gay propoganda' to protect children is probably doing something wrong when it bans other things for the sake of the children." Calling all arguments of progression or precedent slippery slopes is usually a bad argument.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910165]We really think this, "Think of the children" legislation is fine? We're just going to pat Russia on the back for this? This is how boilerplate fascism works. You pass something 'common sense' and 'nice' that everyone agrees with. You pass something to protect someone that looks vulnerable against some strange threat that exists in our folk psychology but erodes upon personal liberty, then everyone goes "Well, it's just such a [I]good law,[/I] how could it be bad?" Or should we just go ahead to pass & applaud every law that protects children physically, mentally and spiritually?[/QUOTE] Yeah that's bad, how about we assume instead that people have ability to think for themselves what is good and what is bad? Banning children beauty pageants is good, banning "gay propaganda" doesn't make any sense and infringes on civil rights, and something else is plain bad?

[QUOTE=gudman;43910500]Yeah that's bad, how about we assume that people have ability to think for themselves what is good and what is bad? Banning children beauty pageants is good, banning "gay propaganda" doesn't make any sense and infringes on civil rights, and something else is plain bad?[/QUOTE] If you want to argue down that line, the gay propaganda could make the children like gays in a way that they shouldn't. Just like a pageant could give a girl anorexia, or make a young boy feel the need to compulsively build muscle in an unhealthy way. The "gay propaganda" does just what the beauty pageants do. It inflicts some psychological, spiritual harm on the children by influencing their thoughts at an age where they are too young to choose for themselves. If that's how you want to try and split the hairs.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910165]We really think this, "Think of the children" legislation is fine?[/quote] Yes, we do. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910165]We're just going to pat Russia on the back for this?[/quote] Yes, we are. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910165]This is how boilerplate fascism works. You pass something 'common sense' and 'nice' that everyone agrees with.[/quote] This just in, if you agree with a law, then it's immediately fascist (???) [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910165]You pass something to protect someone that looks vulnerable against some strange threat that exists in our folk psychology but erodes upon personal liberty, then everyone goes "Well, it's just such a [I]good law,[/I] how could it be bad?"[/quote] There's a lot of debate on whether or not Spanish bullfighting should be banned or not, and it doesn't involve "someone that looks vulnerable". It's also part of "our folk psychology", and technically a ban such as this would also "erode upon personal liberty", but in the end, yes, it's a good thing. And, yes, I am comparing beauty pageants and bullfighting on how cruel and retarded both events are. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910165]Or should we just go ahead to pass & applaud every law that protects children physically, mentally and spiritually?[/QUOTE] No we shouldn't, don't be an idiot.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910519]If you want to argue down that line, the gay propaganda could make the children like gays in a way that they shouldn't. Just like a pageant could give a girl anorexia, or make a young boy feel the need to compulsively build muscle in an unhealthy way. The "gay propaganda" does just what the beauty pageants do. It inflicts some psychological, spiritual harm on the children by influencing their thoughts at an age where they are too young to choose for themselves. If that's how you want to try and split the hairs.[/QUOTE] Well then you should ban "heterosexual propaganda" as well because that could influence the children's sexual orientation in the same way.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910519]If you want to argue down that line, the gay propaganda could make the children like gays in a way that they shouldn't. Just like a pageant could give a girl anorexia, or make a young boy feel the need to compulsively build muscle in an unhealthy way. The "gay propaganda" does just what the beauty pageants do. It inflicts some psychological, spiritual harm on the children by influencing their thoughts at an age where they are too young to choose for themselves. [/QUOTE] I don't think I feel like arguing with that. It's garbage, and I'm sure you're aware of that, but still arguing for the sake of it. "Gay propaganda" as described in the law does nothing to minors because it [b]doesn't exist[/b], no one says "be gay, guys, it's so cool!" or "be lesbian, girls, it's so cool!". Literally zero people have ever done that in this country. Unlike children beauty pageants that [b]exist and are very likely to do actual damage[/b]. How can you compare the two, I don't understand it. [QUOTE=Kljunas;43910552]Well then you should ban "heterosexual propaganda" as well because that could influence the children's sexual orientation in the same way.[/QUOTE] Exactly, it doesn't make any sense. "Propaganda" like that does not exist in reality. Either that, or we must presume that gay and straight people "spread propaganda" just by existing in the world.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;43910527]Yes, we do. A reply. [/QUOTE] It's disgenuine to compare to children's pageants and bullfighting because in one, someone dies, in the other, someone gets a trophy. It's like comparing cockfighting with bingo, because you're betting on a random chance. And no, it is not "if you agree with a law, you are a fascist" it's "power oriented politics (fascism) grows by passing laws that attract moderates with their gentility while appealing to their powerbase and trampling freedoms for common sense." And if we shouldn't, then why would you applaud this? It's just a law protecting children and taking away liberties. Your attempt to take apart my argument hinges on going "OH OF COURSE IT'S A GOOD THING" without actually demonstrating the gains, unless you take the gains to be some fantastical "Well it protects them from cruelty and harm." In which case, why shouldn't we ban exposing children to religion? That's also got a lot of folk psychology about how it hurts children and gives them needless hangups. [quote] I don't think I feel like arguing with that. It's garbage, and I'm sure you're aware of that, but still arguing for the sake of it. "Gay propaganda" as described in the law does nothing to minors because it [B]doesn't exist, no one says "be gay, guys, it's so cool!" or "be lesbian, girls, it's so cool!". Literally zero people have ever done that in this country. Unlike children beauty pageants that [B]exist and are very likely to do actual damage. How can you compare the two, I don't understand it. [/B][/B][/quote][B][/B] I do understand it. My point is that your argument relies on this notion you've got that has literally just as much foundation as the notion you just insisted doesn't exist. If I go out and write an essay about how gays are our friends, so be tolerant [B]that is propaganda because it is some viewpoint which has the intent of persuading.[/B]That imaginary essay insists that gays are some particular thing, and that you must be some particular thing. To the Russian legislature, that's just as harmful as pageantry.

I agree with the banning of the beauty pageants, but the part in bold text worries me a bit: [QUOTE]The draft outlaws child participation in any event where they will show themselves off and be judged on their appearance, [b]if this could harm the child’s health or development physically, intellectually, psychically,and spiritually.[/b][/quote] That last part seems extremely broad in terms of scope. Does this mean any sport a child could participate in may be a valid target for this law? For example, hockey could be considered harmful to a child's health due to collisions or some crap. Could the law potentially be exploited to cover any form of physical activities which children can be enrolled in?

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;43910602]I agree with the banning of the beauty pageants, but the part in bold text worries me a bit: That last part seems extremely broad in terms of scope. Does this mean any sport a child could participate in may be a valid target for this law? For example, hockey could be considered harmful to a child's health due to collisions or some crap. Could the law potentially be exploited to cover any form of physical activities which children can be enrolled in?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised, Milonov's a notorious nutcase, him and his buttbuddies in Duma are known for exploiting vaguely worded laws

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;43910527]Yes, we do. Yes, we are. This just in, if you agree with a law, then it's immediately fascist (???) There's a lot of debate on whether or not Spanish bullfighting should be banned or not, and it doesn't involve "someone that looks vulnerable". It's also part of "our folk psychology", and technically a ban such as this would also "erode upon personal liberty", but in the end, yes, it's a good thing. And, yes, I am comparing beauty pageants and bullfighting on how cruel and retarded both events are. No we shouldn't, don't be an idiot.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with some of the arguments Crazy Ivan has put forward, but he has done so in a logical, articulate and sane manner (which is quite rare around these parts). That is the basis of discussions and arguments, he defends his viewpoints, you defend yours. However this post has no merit whatsoever. While the discussion and argument was going so well, what is the point of posting something that adds nothing to the thread, jumps to conclusions (regarding everyone agreeing with a law being fascists) and ends up with a mildly flaming remark. On second thought, I guess this is SH.

Recently saw a documentary about teen pageants being the only hope of getting out of some far far off towns and lots of girls end up in porn or sex slave trade. [editline]14th February 2014[/editline] Russian ones that is

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;43910602]I agree with the banning of the beauty pageants, but the part in bold text worries me a bit: That last part seems extremely broad in terms of scope. Does this mean any sport a child could participate in may be a valid target for this law? For example, hockey could be considered harmful to a child's health due to collisions or some crap. Could the law potentially be exploited to cover any form of physical activities which children can be enrolled in?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] in any event where they will show themselves off and be judged on their appearance[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910448]I'm not defending pageants, I'm defending the personal liberty that dies with them. We have laws against child abuse, and child trafficking, and other things that make sense. However a blanket ban on "appearance based competitions" for children is just insane. Some do enjoy it, some do go on to do something good with it. It's like banning horse racing because it does real and serious harm to whatever special minority you want to protect. (Horses, Jockies, Chronic gamblers.) At some level we have to make our own decisions. Sometimes our own decisions hurt ourselves and others. If I spend all of my money on building a sportsbar, and it bankrupts myself and my family that is bad. But no one should pass a special law against sportsbars to protect against incompetent spending, unless you want to give up a lot of personal liberties. I do not want to give up my liberty to open a sportsbar. Likewise, somewhere some well adjusted family who isn't some monsterous parody on [I]entertainment driven television [/I]probably wants to engage in a pageant.[/QUOTE] There are a number of reasons why your analogies aren't very good, but the main ones are as follows: 1) Children are not a "special minority", for obvious reasons 2) Children are not usually in a place to know any better or to understand the damage being done to them. It's not like sports, where the trade off to fitness and learning is the chance of injury (which should obviously be measured per child. A child with existing spinal problems shouldn't play football). Child beauty pageants have no good side, no positive to trade for the negative. For the vast majority of participants, the only real result is life-long self-image issues incurred because their parents were irresponsible or stupid. When you limit appearance based contests, the only potential side-effect that comes to mind would be a de facto ban on costume contests (see: Halloween), which is easy enough to change once someone highlights the issue. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that every single possible freedom is good. Some things are just a legitimately bad idea no matter how regulated or unregulated they are. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910580]In which case, why shouldn't we ban exposing children to religion? That's also got a lot of folk psychology about how it hurts children and gives them needless hangups.[/QUOTE] You bet your balls I'd ban indoctrination of the young. I think that is one of the worst crimes of all, perpetuated every day in every country on earth. You must be free to think freely, but the doing is usually another matter.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910580]It's disgenuine to compare to children's pageants and bullfighting because in one, someone dies, in the other, someone gets a trophy. It's like comparing cockfighting with bingo, because you're betting on a random chance.[/quote] In both cases you are exposing someone or something that doesn't know any better to a bunch of people to watch the event and judge on the performance, which in both cases is creepy as fuck and extremely disturbing. I don't care if it involves the death of an animal or the over-sexualisation of girls that are way underage, it's a terrible thing regardless. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910580]And no, it is not "if you agree with a law, you are a fascist" it's "power oriented politics (fascism) grows by passing laws that attract moderates with their gentility while appealing to their powerbase and trampling freedoms for common sense."[/quote] Not every fucking law that appeals to common sense if a fucking fascist government coup. And "freedom" is not set on an untouchable altar of absolute immunity, if it was we wouldn't have a road code. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910580]And if we shouldn't, then why would you applaud this? It's just a law protecting children and taking away liberties.[/quote] Just fucking stop with the "taking away liberties" bullshit. You were as free yesterday as you will be the day after this law will be voted, this is not going to turn you into a slave and it's not going to allow the government to vote laws you take away your precious liberties on a whim. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910580]Your attempt to take apart my argument hinges on going "OH OF COURSE IT'S A GOOD THING" without actually demonstrating the gains, unless you take the gains to be some fantastical "Well it protects them from cruelty and harm."[/quote] I'm not actually trying to take apart your arguments, I'm just pointing out how retarded they are to begin with. If you are actually willing to spew out crap like "this is a fascist law from a fascist government and everyone is fascist and you all hate freedom" then I can't do much more than point out how much of a massive idiot you are and hope you see for yourself that your points make no fucking sense. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910580]In which case, why shouldn't we ban exposing children to religion? That's also got a lot of folk psychology about how it hurts children and gives them needless hangups.[/QUOTE] I never said there shouldn't be one. Besides, there's already laws like this : in the US it's illegal to force a child to pray at school, and in France you can't even show you're religious in School let alone try to convert kids in a public school environment. Just fucking think for a moment and you'll realize your entire logic is retarded and wholefully based on the fantasy that absolute liberty exists, should be kept as it is and that any law impacting it is absolutely fascist in its core.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;43910676]There are a number of reasons why your analogies aren't very good, but the main ones are as follows: 1) Children are not a "special minority", for obvious reasons 2) Children are not usually in a place to know any better or to understand the damage being done to them. It's not like sports, where the trade off to fitness and learning is the chance of injury (which should obviously be measured per child. A child with existing spinal problems shouldn't play football). Child beauty pageants have no good side, no positive to trade for the negative. For the vast majority of participants, the only real result is life-long self-image issues incurred because their parents were irresponsible or stupid. When you limit appearance based contests, the only potential side-effect that comes to mind would be a de facto ban on costume contests (see: Halloween), which is easy enough to change once someone highlights the issue. [B]Don't fall into the trap of assuming that every single possible freedom is good. Some things are just a legitimately bad idea no matter how regulated or unregulated they are[/B].[/QUOTE] First, Children are a special minority. They are a group of the population which we engage in discretionary practice with, which does not represent itself, and which does not vote. Furthermore, if you want to go down the path of "this has no good side" then there is no ultimate good in football, soccer or checkers. All it does is make someone who is more strong and more trained win, and presumably make someone who is less strong lose. It doesn't promote good health (it's dangerous and can injure you), it doesn't promote fair play (cheating is rampant), and it doesn't promote good role models (sportstars kill and rape, then get reduced sentences fairly regularly.) Should I ban children from that so that they don't end up with crippling sports complexes because of the weakness that they had? Also, the bold for my own emphasis. This is the type of thinking that lets us pass sexual legislation. This is the type of thinking that lets me say "There is nothing good about gay sex. It is a mental illness, since it is not procreative or demonstrably intended in our makeup." If I say that, then ban it for the good of the people (this is a big, diffrent argument that I believe we all agree is dumb and does not need to be had. There is no social benefit from banning gays. I know this and agree to this.) then we put fifty years of social progress in the trashcan. Every liberty counts. We give up some liberties for safety (ownership of rocket launchers) but there is no such thing as a petty liberty so small that it will not be missed, so we must guard each one carefully.

Are you seriously comparing a ban on beauty pageant to Russia legalizing the lynching of homosexuals The fuck How about you stop using buzzwords like fascism and liberty and stop using the slippery slope argument so god damn much

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;43910754]Are you seriously comparing a ban on beauty pageant to Russia legalizing the lynching of homosexuals The fuck[/QUOTE] If you could stop for a moment, and stop calling me retard that would help. I'm also not saying this is the same as legalizing the lynching of homosexuals. Your own hyperbole has gotten ahead of you. But if we look at Britain in 1950, they thought that homosexuality was a crime of madness. They sterilized gays for their own good, to suppress their sex drives. They did it out of tolerant love, because they wanted people to conform to some common sense ideal of what is right. It turns out now that that was probably wrong. I'm not going to bother responding directly to you. You've made argumentation into an exhibition of who can yell retard loudest. That's normal, but it's impressive that scale you've gone to. I'm sorry that you think I'm too rabid in my defense of what I think is the edge of essential liberty. I'm sorry that you've read me off as some raving an-cap or something. However I respect your freedom to insist that I am an idiot, so goodluck. I hope you've convinced someone here today to agree with you.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;43910580] I do understand it. My point is that your argument relies on this notion you've got that has literally just as much foundation as the notion you just insisted doesn't exist. If I go out and write an essay about how gays are our friends, so be tolerant [B]that is propaganda because it is some viewpoint which has the intent of persuading.[/B]That imaginary essay insists that gays are some particular thing, and that you must be some particular thing. To the Russian legislature, that's just as harmful as pageantry.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what I called "infringing on civil liberties": it violates the right to freely express your thoughts, freedom of speech, and it is why so called "law about gay propaganda" needs to be either reworked (to accurately define what "propaganda" is and disarm the law from being what it is now) or completely recalled. Banning the beauty pageants, however, does not infringe on civil liberties or human rights, it violates exactly nothing. You can not, I say again, compare the two on any ground other than "both are from Russian Parliament".

[QUOTE=gudman;43910834]This is exactly what I called "infringing on civil liberties": it violates the right to freely express your thoughts, freedom of speech, and it is why so called "law about gay propaganda" needs to be either reworked (to accurately define what "propaganda" is and disarm the law from being what it is now) or completely recalled. Banning the beauty pageants, however, does not infringe on civil liberties or human rights, it violates exactly nothing. You can not, I say again, compare the two on any ground other than "both are from Russian Parliament".[/QUOTE] Then that's where we disagree, and that's just a disagreement of defenitions. I'm glad to have that disagreement, because I feel that fundamentally there's a bigger stake in civil liberties than "free expression." Free action is also important too. The right to worship, the right to own certain things, the right to commit certain deeds. Stripping people of the right to have opinions about who is prettiest on the basis of protecting a minority smacks of stripping people of some right with the intent of building a larger body of precedent and law which revolves around protecting some minority. Which is how you end up passing laws like the gay propaganda law unopposed, because you're doing something 'good' to protect someone.

Your logic makes no sense and takes so many shortcuts it jumped right into nonsense right away. You are literally just using slippery slope arguments constantly and your logic is flawed beyond belief.