What's wrong with being gay?

[Daedalus X]

This thread is a continuation of an off topic conversation from here.

First, I think that we all agree that it's important to promote understanding, respect, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to express their identity without fear of discrimination or harm.


Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

[oldbadger]

Let's consider what bullying is in general.
Bullying can be:

Physical
hitting
pushing and shoving
fighting
tripping
yelling at someone
making rude gestures
taking or breaking another person’s things

Emotional
name calling
making fun of someone
laughing at someone
leaving someone out on purpose
starting rumors or telling lies about someone
sending mean messages on a computer or cell phone
trying to make someone feel bad about who they are

That said, bullying has nothing to do with disagreeing, nor is expressing that some behavior isn't regarded as equally appropriate bullying.

Very good list, LN.
In the UK the law describes the above actions as either victisation, harassment, blackmail, violence or humiliation in different Acts.

[alexxcJRO]

It's a great example of how handling bullies is not as black and white as it needs to be in order to make bullying itself a crime. I fear that people would abuse such a thing and that innocent people would be put in cages. I seek to avoid jailing innocent people and I also seek to discuss what we can do to inhibit bullying.

You want to argue about how you and I exchange words and seek to defend your right to call me a moron in debate, that has memory issues and an odd way of debating.
It's hard to know when someone is or isn't a bully at times, isn't it? Do you see that as a problem if someone is trying to argue for making bullying a crime? Should this fact be ignored or discussed? I am trying to discuss it, you are trying to justify your behavior in this thread and there is no need for you to do so. I point to your behavior in order to illustrate my point, not because you need to defend your ability to call people morons in debate.

I think you have taken your behavior in this thread too personally and therefore seek to justify it. There is no need IMO, I don't believe that the name calling and insults here between us should be a crime. I don't think you do either, yet that is all you seem willing to discuss.

Irrelevant ramblings to the point of disscusion.
Please answer:
Q: Why complain or point out things in others you have done yourself?
Q: Why when you make an accusation, a personal remark its ok but when I do it is not ok?

No. This is debate. Disagreement is expected. Calling people names is not.
I was talking about personal remarks, personal comements, Calling people names .

Please answer:
Q: Do you not feel any amount of hypocrisy for doing the same things you complained about?

I have noted many times now that bullies name call and insult. Trying to determine that enough of it has happened, or enough happened to a weak enough person is what makes bullying becoming a crime a very difficult thing to do.

We have the same problem with sexual harassment.
Yet we still have laws for sexual harassment.

Oh, now I think I see. Sorry, but that can also be a crime already, like assault is.

Blackmail, coercion or intimidation are forms of psychological harm and these can be crimes. Psychological harm can also include name calling and harassment.
https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article ... 20damaging.
Sorry, but I'm still on the side that making bullying a crime seems difficult to do. Assault and theft should remain crimes. Your failure to provide examples for the laws that would make your goal possible is evidence that my position, the one I have had from the start is accurate. The posts have remained in place.

1.
I have already debunked this objection.
We have been over this. Torture includes physical assault and harassment yet we have a laws for torture and for physical assault and harassment.
Repeating the same nonsense that has already been debunk will not change this fact.

2.
We have laws for harassment and sexual harassment.

This was addressed by my example of where I want laws in place that will end world hunger. Aren't I a great person? Whatever you do, don't ask me what I had in mind!

1.
If I just wanted to virtue signaling I would have not engage in such a lengthy debate.
Plus I told you I experienced bulling happening all around me in all kinds of forms(from mild to serious) when in the middle school and high school. That's why I am against it. I was a first hand witness to its horrific nature. I has left a serious impression on me.

I don't care how other people see me in general.
You accusation does not make sense.

2. Its comical how you can talk of the accusation you have brought me: virtue signaling.
But when I wanna talk about the accusation I have brought you try to dissuade from the topic saying its not important.

No. This is debate. Disagreement is expected. Calling people names is not.
I was talking about personal remarks, personal comments, calling people names .

You complain about things you have done and started.

I have noted many times now that bullies name call and insult. Trying to determine that enough of it has happened, or enough happened to a weak enough person is what makes bullying becoming a crime a very difficult thing to do.

We have the same problem with sexual harassment.
Yet we still have laws for sexual harassment.

Oh, now I think I see. Sorry, but that can also be a crime already, like assault is.

Blackmail, coercion or intimidation are forms of psychological harm and these can be crimes. Psychological harm can also include name calling and harassment.
https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article ... 20damaging.
Sorry, but I'm still on the side that making bullying a crime seems difficult to do. Assault and theft should remain crimes. Your failure to provide examples for the laws that would make your goal possible is evidence that my position, the one I have had from the start is accurate. The posts have remained in place.

I have already debunked this objection.
We have been over this. Torture includes physical assault and harassment yet we have a laws for torture and for physical assault and harassment.
Repeating the same nonsense that has already been debunk will not change this fact.

I care about things society can do to inhibit bullying. That is why I presented both of those things to see if you actually cared about inhibiting bullying. I presented options we could discuss on a silver platter to you, but you care more about discussing your name calling and my whining (your words) sadly. Neither of which have anything to do with bullying besides for evidencing that making bullying itself a crime seems like a difficult thing to do.

Pretending like we did not debated for pages upon pages about whether laws should exist or not.
Pretending like I did not presented something for your moving of the goal post.

It doesn't matter beyond how it illustrates that making bullying itself a crime seems very difficult. Pretend I called you names first for all it matters.

Again with saying the same thing to all the debate points.
Please stop doing this.
Answer please:
Q: Who started the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations? Me or you?

I see you were unable to copy/paste to show you spoke the truth. Again, it matters not other than to illustrate my point that making bullying itself a crime would be very difficult.

You were first to make an accusation (virtue signaling):
Clownboat: "vir·tue sig·nal·ing
the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
"My point was that bullying is wrong/evil/malevolent and should be punished no matter who does it. I might be wrong but I don't think so. I rarely am wrong about something." - alexxcJRO

Be well..."
You were first to make personal, derogatory comments towards me:
Clownboat: "It's laughable that you then attempt to compare this to rape in place of trying to make sense of the argument you are putting forth. Your argument needs clarification and you are unwilling to supply it. This is what makes it virtue signaling. "
The above prompted one of my mirrors which prompted your accusation of bulling which is laughable considering the meaning of the concept of mirror.

I never said we couldn't. I continue to suggest why it would be hard, but not that we can't. I would love for you to list a behavior that currently isn't a crime, but should be. Then we could discuss that and compare the possible effect to those of odd sock day for example. You seem more concerned with who called who a name first though sadly.

Nonsense. But you did made the objection that when having laws for X and Y and then making a law for Z which includes X and Y is a no go.

We all know this. I asked you at what point would this become the crime of bullying, which you are unable to provide an answer to which provides evidence to my current possition that making bullying itself a crime would be a very difficult thing to do.

Its a crime when it matches the definition I provided.

You do seem to be virtue signaling and you have committed the very same behavior that a bully does, yet it isn't always a crime which further illustrates my point that making bullying itself a crime would be very difficult.
You got so close! The question is at what point would any of our actions become the crime of bullying and how could we know ahead of time that we are about to commit said crime?
I know, I know.... it's very difficult to answer, which again evidences my position.

You need to realize that just because making bullying a crime seems difficult, we can still discuss it to see if the obstacles can be overcome. Perhaps they can and I'm not seeing it yet?

We were talking here of you sounding hypocritical.
You criticizing what you have done yourself.
No need to muddle all talking points with the same thing in desperation to avoid specific points.

how could we know ahead of time that we are about to commit said crime?

We already talked about this.

Laws exist not because people do not know ahead of time that we are about to commit is wrong, malevolent an evil. It is because people can't help but behave in a wrong, malevolent an evil way.

We have an objective mechanism leading to a morality that is independent of religious propaganda or societal influence.

Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.

As a result of this mirroring process =affective empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the affective empathy) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality) mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

It is a fact that when you see children, women being raped, tortured or killed; when you see the face of someone experiencing intense fear/pain/suffering your mirror neurons fire and the affective empathy process is triggered. You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be raped, tortured, killed(your existence to be stopped, because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.

No moral agent can claim: I do not knew. I was oblivious.

Off course a person knows its wrong
-when repeatedly over a span of time(days, weeks, months, years) hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do;
-when uses force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate for his pleasure or benefit. The person just does not care.

[Clownboat]

Q: Why complain or point out things in others you have done yourself?

It shows that making bullying a crime would be very difficult. You have engaged in the very same activities that a bully does, yet you are innocent from the charge apparently. This is why I have continued to ask you as to 'when' our actions (either of us please note) might go from just debating to now one of us has been charge (hypothetically) with the crime of bullying. If I were to successfully convince others that I was weaker or afraid of you, you just might be guilty of the crime of bullying according to your words.

If you were found guilty (hypothetically), I highly doubt that pointing to other laws that are just as obscure would make you feel any better. You would still be going to jail or what have you. How does that sit with you?

Q: Why when you make an accusation, a personal remark its ok but when I do it is not ok?

No. You really need to try to keep your emotions out of your debate. For far to long you have been trying to defend your actions here. That is unnecessary and completely misses the actual point being made.

Q: Do you not feel any amount of hypocrisy for doing the same things you complained about?

I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings. That was not my intent. I have made this very clear for pages now, so I cannot expect you to understand this, but thought I would say it again anyway.

But when I wanna talk about the accusation I have brought you try to dissuade from the topic saying its not important.

I am sorry for hurting your feelings and I'm sorry I was unable to successfully convey the point as to why I was addressing our actions here. I trust the readers were able to follow along since their emotions were not involved.

Torture includes physical assault and harassment yet we have a laws for torture and for physical assault and harassment.

Correct, we have laws for torture, physical assault and harassment.
Test for you. What is my main objection to making bullying itself a crime?

Q: Who started the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations? Me or you?

We will continue to get nowhere if you are unable to leave your emotions out of this debate. I'm sorry for hurting your feelings whether you feel I called you names first or not. As to who did the actions that a bully does between the two of us, I couldn't care less outside of illustrating my point.

You were first to make an accusation (virtue signaling):

Sure, but that is not what you asked. You asked about name calling: "Who started the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations?"
Again, I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt, but I don't believe I called you any names nor have I insulted your memory or debate style. That is something a bully would do. Apparently this kind of bullying shouldn't be a crime though. Therefore bullying in itself shouldn't be a crime, right? More would be needed and that is what I have been trying to get at. Sadly, I have been informed that others are going have to take that on. Here, it's more important to determine who called who names first.

"My point was that bullying is wrong/evil/malevolent and should be punished no matter who does it."

I hear you. I personally want world hunger to be no more.

You were first to make personal, derogatory comments towards me:
Clownboat: "It's laughable that you then attempt to compare this to rape in place of trying to make sense of the argument you are putting forth. Your argument needs clarification and you are unwilling to supply it. This is what makes it virtue signaling. "

You are still trying to defend my charge of virtue signaling is see. I believe I know why, but that would be off topic. I'm sorry if pointing out what seems to be virtue signaling offended you or hurt your feelings.

The above prompted one of my mirrors which prompted your accusation of bulling which is laughable considering the meaning of the concept of mirror.

The above prompted you to attempt to distract from your virtue signaling. Unsuccessfully I would add. Your name calling and insults about my memory and debate style then followed, which got me to notice that bullies do such things, which made me wonder at what point you might be guilty of bullying if bullying in itself ever becomes a crime.

Off course a person knows its wrong
-when repeatedly over a span of time(days, weeks, months, years) hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do;
-when uses force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate for his pleasure or benefit. The person just does not care.

I reject your premise and most of what follows. Trying to make being hurtful a crime is ludicrous IMO. My evidence is that you had no idea my weakness level nor my frightened level here in this debate where both of us could be accused of committing the acts that a bully does. Bullying itself can therefore not become a crime or both of us would be guilty and you argue that you are not. You make my point, but are unable to see it because you are too focused on defending your name calling and insults that you have leveled against me.

This entire exchange comes down to this.
Clownboat: I notice you have committed acts that a bully commits (the name calling and insults). Perhaps I'm even guilty myself.
alexxcJRO: Sure, but when I do it, it's the same activities that a bully does (name calling and insults), but not actually bullying.
Clownboat: Got it. So bullying in itself is not being argued to be a crime. Seems we agree.

Once again, I have addressed every single question in your post.

PS, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings while illustrating that some of your actions are the very same actions that a bully commits. My point was not to hurt you, but to illustrate as to why making bullying in itself a crime is unfeasible.

[alexxcJRO]

It shows that making bullying a crime would be very difficult. You have engaged in the very same activities that a bully does, yet you are innocent from the charge apparently. This is why I have continued to ask you as to 'when' our actions (either of us please note) might go from just debating to now one of us has been charge (hypothetically) with the crime of bullying. If I were to successfully convince others that I was weaker or afraid of you, you just might be guilty of the crime of bullying according to your words.

If you were found guilty (hypothetically), I highly doubt that pointing to other laws that are just as obscure would make you feel any better. You would still be going to jail or what have you. How does that sit with you?

Irrelevant ramblings to the point of discussion.
Please don't change the subject of this point of discussion.
Answer the q:
Q: Why complain or point out things in others you have done yourself?

No.

Q: If it's not ok why do you do it?

I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings. That was not my intent. I have made this very clear for pages now, so I cannot expect you to understand this, but thought I would say it again anyway.

We are talking about you not me. You being hypocritical.
Try to avoid such things in the future.
To not complain of things you are guilty too.

I am sorry for hurting your feelings and I'm sorry I was unable to successfully convey the point as to why I was addressing our actions here. I trust the readers were able to follow along since their emotions were not involved.

Try in the future to not propagate double standards where you are allowed to do certain things and rest not.
If its ok for a person X to do certain action A it should be ok for a person Y to do the certain action A.

Correct, we have laws for torture, physical assault and harassment.
Test for you. What is my main objection to making bullying itself a crime?

Here you are objecting by saying its not ok to make bulling laws because we have laws for harassment and physical assault ignoring we have laws for torture and for harassment and physical assault. The objection does not make sense.
Please continue the discussion as it logically follows. Don't bore me with irrelevant things to this point of discussion.

We will continue to get nowhere if you are unable to leave your emotions out of this debate. I'm sorry for hurting your feelings whether you feel I called you names first or not. As to who did the actions that a bully does between the two of us, I couldn't care less outside of illustrating my point.

Please don't avoid the q again:
Q: Who started the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations? Me or you?

Sure, but that is not what you asked. You asked about name calling: "Who started the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations?"
Again, I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt, but I don't believe I called you any names nor have I insulted your memory or debate style. That is something a bully would do. Apparently this kind of bullying shouldn't be a crime though. Therefore bullying in itself shouldn't be a crime, right? More would be needed and that is what I have been trying to get at. Sadly, I have been informed that others are going have to take that on. Here, it's more important to determine who called who names first.

You did start the thing with the personal remarks. It was off course more subtle-> indirectly. The same was from my direction.
The accusations on the other hand were spoken directly from both sides.

I hear you. I personally want world hunger to be no more.

Q: How is making laws for bulling and punishing the guilty equivalent to stopping world hunger ?

You are still trying to defend my charge of virtue signaling is see. I believe I know why, but that would be off topic. I'm sorry if pointing out what seems to be virtue signaling offended you or hurt your feelings.

Try to focus. Here the point of discussion is demonstrating who started with the personal, derogatory comments towards the opposing debater.

The above prompted you to attempt to distract from your virtue signaling. Unsuccessfully I would add. Your name calling and insults about my memory and debate style then followed, which got me to notice that bullies do such things, which made me wonder at what point you might be guilty of bullying if bullying in itself ever becomes a crime.

Try to focus. Here the point of discussion is me pointing out that you starting to accuse me of bulling which makes no sense considering the meaning of the concept of mirrors.
Please adress the point of the argument and not bore with some other irrelevant thing.

My evidence is that you had no idea my weakness level nor my frightened level

We have been over this. Repeating the same nonsense.
Things can be inferred from your words which did not show this. You have ridiculed yourself.
Your actions and emoticons used by you suggest otherwise. Not a state of fright.
It does not match the definitions I have provided.

This entire exchange comes down to this.
Clownboat: I notice you have committed acts that a bully commits (the name calling and insults). Perhaps I'm even guilty myself.
alexxcJRO: Sure, but when I do it, it's the same activities that a bully does (name calling and insults), but not actually bullying.
Clownboat: Got it. So bullying in itself is not being argued to be a crime. Seems we agree.

Delusions and/or Straw man.

Reality:

alexxcJRO: The concepts: Name calling, ridicule, personal comments are not equal with the concept of bulling. We can have name calling, ridicule, personal comments and not have bulling. Me and my brothers we name call, ridicule, make personal comments about each other and we are not bulling each other. We are having fun. Nobody wants to dominate, intimidate the others. We all do it.
We need to have an intention to dominate, intimidate and we need to have an imbalance present. The name call, ridicule, personal comments is one sided and repeated over the span of days, weeks, months, years.

Clownboat: (Ignoring the above)Will you be willing to discuss bullying laws, making the laws?

PS, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings while illustrating that some of your actions are the very same actions that a bully commits. My point was not to hurt you, but to illustrate as to why making bullying in itself a crime is unfeasible.

Mirror:
PS, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings while illustrating that some of your actions are the very same actions that a dishonest debater commits. My point was not to hurt you, but to illustrate as to why debating dishonestly is not ok.

[Clownboat]

Mirror:
PS, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings while illustrating that some of your actions are the very same actions that a dishonest debater commits. My point was not to hurt you, but to illustrate as to why debating dishonestly is not ok.

I'm now convinced that you are unable to comprehend my posts. Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing, but you fail to answer my questions and just assert that my posts are random ramblings or whatever other slur you have imagined.

Again, it's obvious that I have hurt your feelings. That was not my intent, but I have explained my intent far too many times now that I'm convinced I will remain unable to get you to understand. My evidence for this is that you failed to accurately answer what my main objection is. I fully believe that you do not understand my objection.

Here you are objecting by saying its not ok to make bulling laws because we have laws for harassment and physical assault ignoring we have laws for torture and for harassment and physical assault.

Not my objection.
That is ok, but it has made our debate personal (who called who what first) while ignoring why the words were typed in the first place.

I'm sorry that you are hurt, but you have acted like a bully here (committed the same actions a bully does, yet you are not one apparently) and I'm guessing you didn't like to find that out so you have lost site of our debate in place of defending your actions. Far too many times I have told you that you have no need to defend your name calling and insults, but you just are not able stop and this again has prevented any actual debate.

If you can form any questions that don't have anything to do with defending either of our actions here, I will respond.
If not, just go on believing that I'm a moron, with memory issues who has an odd way of debating and consider yourself a winner. I will not lose any sleep as I don't think about you outside of these responses.

Be well...

[Purple Knight]

I've been following a bit. And I think I've reversed my stance on this. People take so much for granted when the other side doesn't make a big legal deal out of everything they do.

Bullying should be a crime. And everyone should take everyone to task for bullying them, if it violates the law make sure they're punished. No one ought to say, "Well, I don't think it should be a crime, so I won't report that because they didn't do anything wrong." People doing that, largely on the Right, are the main cause of this issue. Laws are already excessive and people can't see that because disputes are likely to be along political lines and one side is never punished. Thus, that side roots for even more punishment, because (generous side) they see too little punishment, or even because (cynical side) they know it'll never affect them.

When everyone is in jail maybe we can start from a place of more understanding.

[alexxcJRO]

I'm now convinced that you are unable to comprehend my posts. Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing, but you fail to answer my questions and just assert that my posts are random ramblings or whatever other slur you have imagined.
Again, it's obvious that I have hurt your feelings. That was not my intent, but I have explained my intent far too many times now that I'm convinced I will remain unable to get you to understand. My evidence for this is that you failed to accurately answer what my main objection is. I fully believe that you do not understand my objection.
Now I did not understood your objections.

The master of misunderstanding of ones argument is complaining.
Again with complaining of things you are guilty: you failed to accurately understand the opponent argument.
You have learn nothing.

I'm sorry that you are hurt, but you have acted like a bully here (committed the same actions a bully does, yet you are not one apparently) and I'm guessing you didn't like to find that out so you have lost site of our debate in place of defending your actions. Far too many times I have told you that you have no need to defend your name calling and insults, but you just are not able stop and this again has prevented any actual debate.
If you can form any questions that don't have anything to do with defending either of our actions here, I will respond.
If not, just go on believing that I'm a moron, with memory issues who has an odd way of debating and consider yourself a winner. I will not lose any sleep as I don't think about you outside of these responses.

Nobody is hurt. Nobody was bullied.
Still propagating delusions after they have been debunked.
The same dishonest behaviour.

If not, just go on believing that I'm a moron, with memory issues who has an odd way of debating and consider yourself a winner

I did not actually said you are a moron.
It was mostly a rhetorical question from what I remember.
I did not actually said you are forgetful.

[marke]

This thread is a continuation of an off topic conversation from here.

First, I think that we all agree that it's important to promote understanding, respect, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to express their identity without fear of discrimination or harm.


Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

God condemns sexual promiscuity and perversion because God knows the damage such sins do to individuals and socities.

[oldbadger]

God condemns sexual promiscuity and perversion because God knows the damage such sins do to individuals and socities.

The Mosaic laws banned all that, thousands of years ago. But your God's Mosaic laws included 613 rules, laws and requirements. Do you obey them all?

[marke]

God condemns sexual promiscuity and perversion because God knows the damage such sins do to individuals and socities.

The Mosaic laws banned all that, thousands of years ago. But your God's Mosaic laws included 613 rules, laws and requirements. Do you obey them all?

A Christian does not obey laws written in the OT except to use the laws to understand how to obey God's will in the Spirit, not the letter.