Lucas Ho Wei-Jie
-
Too bored and such a tight-ass, or just attention-seeking.
Please.
**shakes head. -
i wonder why christians always take the blame....haizzz
-
Pray, specifically how would contraceptives degrade marriage as an instituition? For some married couples, no contraception means bearing more kids than they can afford. And this lead to stable and strong families? This is the exact problems they have in developing countries - no contraception, too many kids in poor families.Originally posted by twocents:Read Lucas' article again. He's saying that the ad attempts to equate 'contraceptive' to 'wedding ring'.
Such an association degrades marriage as an institution, and stable family ties as a building block of society. Since the govt recognises stable and strong families as a building block of society, some govt department needs to be responsible to vet advertisements to ensure that they are in line with the mainstream societal values and ethos.
The article's call for relevant govt depts to exercise more oversight is justifiable. But the govt dept concerned of course also reserves the right to respond or not respond.
Not forgetting, in Singapore, you are asking a government who dictate how many kids we must have to even dictate the use of condoms? Huh?
And what are Singapore's mainstream societal values and ethos? Are you sure these are universal values? -
if looking at the event singularly, its wrong to pinpoint the guy based on his religionOriginally posted by laoda99:i wonder why christians always take the blame....haizzz -
They like taking the blame what, let them be.Originally posted by laoda99:i wonder why christians always take the blame....haizzz
Lol -
Apparently someone needed to drag up other stuff or else he had no case.Seems to me that's a agenda hunt by a chappie who has too much time on his hands.Originally posted by twocents:Rubbish.
Lucas Ho Wei-Jie didn't mention he is Christian in the Straits Times article, nor did he say he is speaking on behalf of Christians. The viewpoints expressed are his own, and are just traditional. Lucas could be Buddhist, or Muslim, or Hindu, for all we care. His article doesn't tarnish any image of any religious group.
Tamago, too bad if you've got a problem with the social conservatives.I don't think you're any much of a liberal anyway. -
it's quite strange that there is nothing on his blog that suggests he is an extremist, and knowing what he is in his daily life merely affirms what he is. do u actually thought that has been detrimental in this discussion? would it have the same effect if i had merely stated that he is xtian? at least giving him a friendster profile gives us an idea of how he is like.
do u know why i have set it in the first post? if not, we will merely be disgraded to a discussion dictated by a first few posts of innocent forummers who come in and say things like, "is he human?" or "is he a man?" and no one looking at the kind of background he is coming from.
if i simply put a note saying he is a xtian, or just a staunch one, would u not guarantee tat ppl will be misled and start stereotyping faster than they type here? their minds would have wondered elsewhere. it's better setting the record right. this is what he type, verbatim. i dun judge (other than giving my viewpoint and invoking a discussion) him based on wat he type and then cover it up completely saying "this guy is like this, this guy is like that" which is dangerous, i provide the resource for everyone to read it for himself and make his stand.
i put this here so that we can have a proper discussion about it, cos, indeed, the discussion has degraded to senseless one-liners at edmw and no one had posted it here. we had discussed such difficult topics like jc-poly (pls dun start again) and things like tat, why not this?
in any case, i have put my stand that he is not going to do any good to xtians in general. i've been in and out of the xtian circle, and i've been in discussions with a lot of outsiders who had misjudgements about xianity, and shun it at any meagre attempt to explain. evangelism will become harder. this will only make the task harder. this is my view. in any case, i'm standing on top of it, not saying he is right or wrong, but telling you this is the consequence. -
I think you're a bit confused.Originally posted by laurence82:Pray, specifically how would contraceptives degrade marriage as an instituition? For some married couples, no contraception means bearing more kids than they can afford. And this lead to stable and strong families? This is the exact problems they have in developing countries - no contraception, too many kids in poor families.
This is the same confusion engendered by the advertisement, showing that the Lucas article has a certain merit.
Despite the laudable family-planning benefits contraception can bring to married couples, contraception is contraception, marriage is marriage.
Contraception is not marriage, marriage is not contraception.
Marriage is more than just sex with contraception or sex without contraception.
The stability of marriage cannot be reduced to just a contraceptive decision.
The concept of marriage is dealt an injustice if it is reduced to merely the idea of sex with a contraceptive decision waiting to be made.
If the two are so interchangeable, maybe next time instead of giving your loved one a wedding ring, you should give her a IUD/pill/femidon.
Who said they are? You brought up the word. Mainstream doesn't mean universal. As there is mainstream, likewise there will also be sub-stream, sidestream and sub-cultures.Originally posted by laurence82:Are you sure these are universal values?
The government of the day can and should uphold the mainstream norms; as individuals I don't see how anybody can stop you holding non-universal views unless they come to be criminalized.
Some people may find the device cute and a turn-on, but the less objectionable place to sell it would be in sex-toys shops, as already mentioned, where other kinky stuffs are sold.
A larger question might be whether this device should be considered as just an ordinary over-the-counter contraceptive saleable in convenience stores, or it should be re-classified as more of a sex toy and appropriately handled as such. Anybody with business sense would know that Durex would probably prefer it to be categorized as the former case, so as to reach a wider market. In any case, commercially speaking they have Lucas to thank for the free publicity in the Straits Times. But I applaud his good intentions. -
Again, people still cannot specifically state how contraception can degrade marriage. Its not enough to say marriage is marriage, contraception is contraception and whats all this talk about giving partner IUD? I see contraception as a first an foremost guard against unwanted pregnancy in pre-marital sex, if and only if we cannot forestall such action. It plays a part in marriage, by inculcating the values of family planning, rather than bearing more kids than one could afford. Of course, religiously, i cannot prescribe such course of action for Catholics or the Muslims.
Will contraception then degrade the instituition of marriage? Rather, contraception plays a part in the instituition of marriage, and other things, including prevention of unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, STDs and other ills.
In an argument, its not enough to state your own values in the guise of a good analysis. Its not enough to state marriage is marriage, contraception is contraception, and then stating that anyone would doesnt know is confused. The validity of your argument is challenged when people starts to ask 'why would these two be mutually exclusive?'. I have already pointed out how these two things are linked.
Again, I found someone trying to apply the utilitarian-Jeremy Bentham-what not views in rather disturbing ways. Pray what is defined as the mainstream values and norms, I asked this before, before you blatantly state that the government has the duty to uphold the societal norms and values yada yada.
Because this sounds a lot like the PAP, when questioned about matters such as censorship, George Yeo, for example, was yakking away about Asian conservative values without defining what they are, and worse of all, to simply state that and turn that into a policy 'supported by the majority' of Singaporeans.
Its not universal as you admit, that has broken some freedom of rights, you could not define and prove what they are, you have already exhorted a dictatorial-utilitarian view so commonly used by authoritarian government. I think, before the debate goes on, we have to stop this value-stating as if they are right and happened to be there, before anyone could could go in and analyse the issues deeper. -
actually, like i said, the event could still be debated without needing to take into account the religion of that guy, issue is issue, coz we do have problems of AIDs and contraception and all that, you can still separate the human writer if you want, although I do believe his religious background do contributes to his current views
i just dont like this pushing of his values on the whole of Singapore through the government -
actually it might turn into a troll or bar thread if we discussed his issue as he is. dun u think so?Originally posted by laurence82:actually, like i said, the event could still be debated without needing to take into account the religion of that guy, issue is issue....
i just dont like this pushing of his values on the whole of Singapore through the government
-
people will get influence......why don't you post positive ads instead or some others ads.............and yet our society will not change because of an ad but that ad is one of the way to influece minds of the pple and slowly slowly........Originally posted by FireIce:the ad itself is innocent
it's up to ppl to interpret as they like......
i think it's a pretty good campaign
our society will not change bcos of an ad -
ads' influence can only go thus far. it's up to the human mind whether to accept it or not.
if they're so effective, we would have been able to do things like arrest the fall in birth rate, reduce smoking rate etc. the ads have been around since the 80s, but human mind and practicalities are more significant factors than a poster campaign. -
Masochism?Originally posted by laoda99:i wonder why christians always take the blame....haizzz -
there are cognitive differences between our state campaigns and private sector media drives.Originally posted by ^tamago^:ads' influence can only go thus far. it's up to the human mind whether to accept it or not.
if they're so effective, we would have been able to do things like arrest the fall in birth rate, reduce smoking rate etc. the ads have been around since the 80s, but human mind and practicalities are more significant factors than a poster campaign.
the effectiveness is laid out pretty clear for all to see.
Lau, yes, at the risk of reducing this to a GY style top-down approach, I'm only saying that we don't have to drag religion into a matter of personal morality and choice.He doesn't like where this is going, and it's his free choice too.
We cannot denounce the choice of one man just because the majority thinks he is por-lampahing the state or GY's misguided words in a weak, pathetic defense of state policy.
It's a free choice to lobby for more conservatism, perhaps realpolitik dictates that by due logic, an endorsement of a campaign by the state does have a bigger weight, and ironically, isn't that what we have been lacking? Citizen-driven social activism. -
Who is GY?
-
Actually, for me, his choice was condemned not simply because of his choice, but his lack of argument and strong support for his stance.Originally posted by LazerLordz:there are cognitive differences between our state campaigns and private sector media drives.
the effectiveness is laid out pretty clear for all to see.
Lau, yes, at the risk of reducing this to a GY style top-down approach, I'm only saying that we don't have to drag religion into a matter of personal morality and choice.He doesn't like where this is going, and it's his free choice too.
We cannot denounce the choice of one man just because the majority thinks he is por-lampahing the state or GY's misguided words in a weak, pathetic defense of state policy.
It's a free choice to lobby for more conservatism, perhaps realpolitik dictates that by due logic, an endorsement of a campaign by the state does have a bigger weight, and ironically, isn't that what we have been lacking? Citizen-driven social activism.
And LL, speak write in simpler england leh.>.< -
paiseh la.Originally posted by laurence82:Actually, for me, his choice was condemned not simply because of his choice, but his lack of argument and strong support for his stance.
And LL, speak write in simpler england leh.>.<
oh GY = George Yeo. 
-
/takes in thermometer...measure temperature ..............
120 degrees celsius??!!
/siams -
y ppl here like to argue in chim chim english one.. i read liao headache leh.. aiya.. each one say one sentence less n the world will b a better place!
-
Meaning letter writer should not start writing letterOriginally posted by monoslayer:y ppl here like to argue in chim chim english one.. i read liao headache leh.. aiya.. each one say one sentence less n the world will b a better place!
Ban ST Forum! -
The idea is that even if contraception is sometimes beneficial within a marriage, but if contraception is equated to marriage, then the concept of marriage is degraded, because marriage should be much much more than just contraception alone.Originally posted by laurence82:Again, people still cannot specifically state how contraception can degrade marriage. Its not enough to say marriage is marriage, contraception is contraception and whats all this talk about giving partner IUD? I see contraception as a first an foremost guard against unwanted pregnancy in pre-marital sex, if and only if we cannot forestall such action. It plays a part in marriage, by inculcating the values of family planning, rather than bearing more kids than one could afford. Of course, religiously, i cannot prescribe such course of action for Catholics or the Muslims.
Will contraception then degrade the instituition of marriage? Rather, contraception plays a part in the instituition of marriage, and other things, including prevention of unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, STDs and other ills.
In an argument, its not enough to state your own values in the guise of a good analysis. Its not enough to state marriage is marriage, contraception is contraception, and then stating that anyone would doesnt know is confused. The validity of your argument is challenged when people starts to ask 'why would these two be mutually exclusive?'. I have already pointed out how these two things are linked.
Again, I found someone trying to apply the utilitarian-Jeremy Bentham-what not views in rather disturbing ways. Pray what is defined as the mainstream values and norms, I asked this before, before you blatantly state that the government has the duty to uphold the societal norms and values yada yada.
Because this sounds a lot like the PAP, when questioned about matters such as censorship, George Yeo, for example, was yakking away about Asian conservative values without defining what they are, and worse of all, to simply state that and turn that into a policy 'supported by the majority' of Singaporeans.
Its not universal as you admit, that has broken some freedom of rights, you could not define and prove what they are, you have already exhorted a dictatorial-utilitarian view so commonly used by authoritarian government. I think, before the debate goes on, we have to stop this value-stating as if they are right and happened to be there, before anyone could could go in and analyse the issues deeper.
Thus stated succinctly. I can't help it if you refuse to read it.
I didn't suggest they're 'mutually exclusive'. You're the one who suggested that. And then you went on to say why they're not mutually exclusive. Except no one else here said they're mutually exclusive to start with.
Certainly I agree 'contraceptives' would be helpful to poor developing countries. I'm not too sure though that 'sex toys' would be one of the high-priority things developing countries need. As for whether we should have sex toys and the ads widely available in S'pore, that is still an open question.
Values are hard to define, but they are something that can be felt. I'm not as well-versed in language as you, using arcane phrases such as 'utilitarian-Jeremy Bentham-what not', so I don't feel justified in pretending to be qualified to try to define values. A failure to define mainstream values does not mean they don't exist. A lot of societies have values, which are difficult to describe fully in words, partly because values are fuzzy, and definitions cannot cover all situations encountered in real-life.
Values also shift over time. They are not laws, or a constitution. If you have some urls how other countries have successfully defined their mainstream values, you might want to provide them here for our reference. If these are hard to find, perhaps there's a reason, that it's because most countries recognize the difficulty of trying to define and encode intangible things. I can't do any better.
Yet that has not deterred governments or watchdog bodies elsewhere from stepping in to reject ads, publications, radio shows, TV programs, movies which may cross over fuzzy lines of good taste or public morality, etc etc, in many countries. The lack of 'values' definitions satisfactory to you has not stopped many conservative countries' govts from doing what they need to do. The practice is not unique to Singapore. We may have to be content with a lack of a set of hard-and-fast definitions for now.
Seeing PAP's style in my post? That's a good one. Who's been attending many political rallies? Not me.
Your posts tend to put words into my mouth.
It's good to have an opinion, you're entitled to your own opinion and to argue it, but don't falsify my opinion. I never said any two particular things are 'mutually exclusive'. -
The flimsy explanation doesn't change my perception that Tamago has a private agenda and was trying to provoke attacks against Lucas personally and Christians, going by his earlier posts.Originally posted by ^tamago^:it's quite strange that there is nothing on his blog that suggests he is an extremist, and knowing what he is in his daily life merely affirms what he is. do u actually thought that has been detrimental in this discussion? would it have the same effect if i had merely stated that he is xtian? at least giving him a friendster profile gives us an idea of how he is like.
do u know why i have set it in the first post? if not, we will merely be disgraded to a discussion dictated by a first few posts of innocent forummers who come in and say things like, "is he human?" or "is he a man?" and no one looking at the kind of background he is coming from.
if i simply put a note saying he is a xtian, or just a staunch one, would u not guarantee tat ppl will be misled and start stereotyping faster than they type here? their minds would have wondered elsewhere. it's better setting the record right. this is what he type, verbatim. i dun judge (other than giving my viewpoint and invoking a discussion) him based on wat he type and then cover it up completely saying "this guy is like this, this guy is like that" which is dangerous, i provide the resource for everyone to read it for himself and make his stand.
i put this here so that we can have a proper discussion about it, cos, indeed, the discussion has degraded to senseless one-liners at edmw and no one had posted it here. we had discussed such difficult topics like jc-poly (pls dun start again) and things like tat, why not this?
in any case, i have put my stand that he is not going to do any good to xtians in general. i've been in and out of the xtian circle, and i've been in discussions with a lot of outsiders who had misjudgements about xianity, and shun it at any meagre attempt to explain. evangelism will become harder. this will only make the task harder. this is my view. in any case, i'm standing on top of it, not saying he is right or wrong, but telling you this is the consequence.
Trying to explain now how noble his original intentions were while he was publicizing Lucas' blog and friendster, and now trying to take credit for stimulating other forummites' work in discussing the subject, just seem to worsen the perception.
But don't worry, forummites are forgiving. -
its always extraordinary perspectives that causes problem
-
hey sgforum, lucas here.
just to clarify : i did not write against contraceptives. I'm writing against sex toys being marketed as a symbol of matrimony, and against the conspicuous advertisments of such implements.