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?

[Clownboat]

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.

Neato! Now how do you measure bullying? On a scale of 1 - 100?
At what point do fines kick in? At a score of 25?
How about jail time? Would that be at 50 and above?
Death penalty? 85 or higher on your bullying scale?

Is there an age limit? Would toddlers in daycare be subjected to punishment for continuing to steal the pacifier of another toddler for example?

When I see bullying, I intercede. So I am very much against bullying, but I also recognize a pipe dream when I see one. Perhaps you will be able to clarify the bullying scale and age limit though so it can make sense to the rest of us an not sound like virtue signaling?

1. Your gonna bore me with: OMG is hard to punish.
Q: Really?
We do it like we did it with stealing and rape and other things.
Imagine if people said it like you did about rape. But its hard. Funny.
I am sure there are solutions.

2. Punishment of toddlers! Q: Really?
Q: Who does punish non-moral agents? Morons?

Copy/paste to save time: "Perhaps you will be able to clarify the bullying scale and age limit though so it can make sense to the rest of us an not sound like virtue signaling?"
I'm not interested in listening to you being proud of yourself. This is a debate site... Try it.

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...

[Purple Knight]

Well, since this is a debate site, please pick a situation for us to discuss/debate.
Do you have one?

Just pick a situation that matters to you.

Bullying. The OP was about being gay, and one of the reasons this causes conflict is that people are bullied for being gay and want legal protection. People point out that no one else has this protection, and ultimately those on your side will, if the choice is binary, select for special groups to have special protections, rather than for nobody to have any protections. Unless I misunderstand. You didn't answer when I asked you.

False dichotomies should not exist. The spectrum is real in all things. Delimitations exits only for morons because they can't only comprehend continuous spectrum.

There is not only [1] "bullying remains a thing" or [2]"a special group is protected from bulling" choices.
Some might make it that way. A medium where tribal mentality, bias proliferate and fuel a constant state of conflict, opposition.

Laws should be made for all. We don't want to turn a right into a wrong.

Well, which do you think is more important? I understand that you support protection for all. I feel like this is the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative ideologies. Liberals have the more moral ideology, with much stronger and numerous rights for people. But it's also harder to achieve in practice, and a liberal will always be happy that one more person had their ideal, full rights respected, where a conservative will choose slightly lesser rights, in order that they can more realistically be applied to everyone.

[alexxcJRO]

Copy/paste to save time: "Perhaps you will be able to clarify the bullying scale and age limit though so it can make sense to the rest of us an not sound like virtue signaling?"
I'm not interested in listening to you being proud of yourself. This is a debate site... Try it.

Dear sir,

This is my argument:

Convicting, punishing people of rape is a very hard yet we do it.
So wining that bulling is hard to punish is pathetic. Bulling is many times easier to punish and prove for its happening in public not in close intimate, limited space.

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...

Wrong again.
"Virtue signaling is the expression of a conspicuous, self-righteous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character."

Its not virtue signaling for

1. I don't wanna communicating my good character. I am only interested in truth.

2. I don't care what people(mostly which are simpletons) believe of me. I never cared.

I don't care to be looked in a certain moral way. In any way. This mentality has helped tremendously in my life where I simply do no want to please no one. Not even women.
The simpletons(women too) gather arround me like bugs to light because of this. They find it cool and attractive. I don't need to lift a single finger.

On the other hand politicians do care that's why they are mostly find in this position: engaging with this psychological mechanism. They need to get support and be elected/re-elected.

[oldbadger]

Well, since this is a debate site, please pick a situation for us to discuss/debate.
Do you have one?

Just pick a situation that matters to you.

Bullying. The OP was about being gay, and one of the reasons this causes conflict is that people are bullied for being gay and want legal protection. People point out that no one else has this protection, and ultimately those on your side will, if the choice is binary, select for special groups to have special protections, rather than for nobody to have any protections. Unless I misunderstand. You didn't answer when I asked you.

Yes, people can get bullied by nasty bigots for being gay. However, to protect gays from being attacked doesn't need special legal protection, it just needs legal protection against anybody being bullied. Bullying can be the abuse of strength which another might not have, and so to beat anybody in the street and take their wallet or mobile is a very serious crime....... not just when carried out against gays.

And where I live to put fear in to another, any other, with words and gestures is also a crime...against anybody.

You mentioned 'my side'.......... I don't have a side, just my own opinions.

What would you do if a couple of nasty people threated you so badly in the street that you feared for your safety? What would you do? You see, it doesn't matter what your sexuality is. I would guess that you don't have a partner or girlfriend, so maybe you could get picked on because some bigots assume that you are gay because of that? By the way, am I right? Are you single?

[alexxcJRO]

False dichotomies should not exist. The spectrum is real in all things. Delimitations exits only for morons because they can't only comprehend continuous spectrum.

There is not only [1] "bullying remains a thing" or [2]"a special group is protected from bulling" choices.
Some might make it that way. A medium where tribal mentality, bias proliferate and fuel a constant state of conflict, opposition.

Laws should be made for all. We don't want to turn a right into a wrong.

Well, which do you think is more important? I understand that you support protection for all. I feel like this is the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative ideologies. Liberals have the more moral ideology, with much stronger and numerous rights for people. But it's also harder to achieve in practice, and a liberal will always be happy that one more person had their ideal, full rights respected, where a conservative will choose slightly lesser rights, in order that they can more realistically be applied to everyone.

I am not affiliated to any ideologies or political parties. Its restrictive. That's for simpletons.
I am open minded person.
My whole point was that bullying should be punished no matter who does it.
The key point things need to be done about it. The end goal is clear. We should arrive there either by slow, small steps or faster, bigger steps.
Sometimes finishing the race in a slowly manner is better then not finishing at all because I want everything fast or because its hard and I like to whine.

[Clownboat]

Copy/paste to save time: "Perhaps you will be able to clarify the bullying scale and age limit though so it can make sense to the rest of us an not sound like virtue signaling?"
I'm not interested in listening to you being proud of yourself. This is a debate site... Try it.

Dear sir,

This is my argument:

Convicting, punishing people of rape is a very hard yet we do it.
So wining that bulling is hard to punish is pathetic. Bulling is many times easier to punish and prove for its happening in public not in close intimate, limited space.

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...

Wrong again.
"Virtue signaling is the expression of a conspicuous, self-righteous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character."

Its not virtue signaling for

1. I don't wanna communicating my good character. I am only interested in truth.

2. I don't care what people(mostly which are simpletons) believe of me. I never cared.

I don't care to be looked in a certain moral way. In any way. This mentality has helped tremendously in my life where I simply do no want to please no one. Not even women.
The simpletons(women too) gather arround me like bugs to light because of this. They find it cool and attractive. I don't need to lift a single finger.

On the other hand politicians do care that's why they are mostly find in this position: engaging with this psychological mechanism. They need to get support and be elected/re-elected.

You typed far too many words when you could have just said: "No, I cannot clarify the bullying scale and age limit in order for it to make sense".

Is there an age limit? Would toddlers in daycare be subjected to punishment for continuing to steal the pacifier of another toddler for example?

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. Sure, your argument sounds good, but it isn't good if you cannot make it sound. Care to try?

Specifically:
Now how do you measure bullying? On a scale of 1 - 100? (Please note, rape either happened or it didn't).
At what point do fines kick in? At a score of 25? (Would this be like making fun of someone for being bald? Is making fun of a bald guy more or less bullying then making fun of someone for being gay?)
How about jail time? Would that be at 50 and above? (Perhaps after X quantities of making fun of a bald guy?)
Death penalty? 85 or higher on your bullying scale? (Would this by like making fun of a bald guy like super bad?)

[Purple Knight]

What would you do if a couple of nasty people threated you so badly in the street that you feared for your safety? What would you do?

What I did do, was move away. Them's the breaks if you're not special. I used to live in Wilton Manners, a very gay area. Crime was rare. But police were very unresponsive to anything that wasn't hate-related. If it was teenagers making threats, breaking in, breaking windows, stealing bikes, slashing tires, everyone understood it was okay as long as nobody special was being targeted. When word got round to me that the police had had a talk with these kids for targeting the wrong house (rather than for doing these things at all) I just moved. I didn't whine. I didn't complain. I didn't say oh poor me omg inequality GIB ME MOR RIGHTS I DESERVE THEM... I just moved away.

I didn't place myself in a tribe. But I am in one. I'm in the one where if discrimination happens to me, it's not only perfectly okay, but if I complain, it isn't okay. If I complain, I'm a bigot, transphobe, homophobe, whatever. That's fine with me. I have no problem with any of it. Them's the breaks. I'm also fine with standing up for rights of others which I do not have. I just won't call it equality.

And I do stand for things like Critical Race Theory. I think it's true that whites are oppressive. Affirmative Action should not apply to the NBA because Blacks are not oppressive. Nobody is denying anybody the right to play on the Miami Heat for being white. The cold hard truth is that whites have lower ability in basketball than Blacks. In most sports, probably. Affirmative Action should not protect white people; it wouldn't be right. But at the same time, it's not equality.

When I mentioned your side, what I meant is the pro side for legal protection from words. If everyone threatened had real protection, every other person would need to be a cop. At least, in a place where it happens all the time. You have to see it's so situational that it can't possibly apply to everyone. It won't be based on what anyone actually did. It will be a judgment call, every time. Laws like that are dangerous.

[oldbadger]

What I did do, was move away. Them's the breaks if you're not special. I used to live in Wilton Manners, a very gay area. Crime was rare. But police were very unresponsive to anything that wasn't hate-related. If it was teenagers making threats, breaking in, breaking windows, stealing bikes, slashing tires, everyone understood it was okay as long as nobody special was being targeted. When word got round to me that the police had had a talk with these kids for targeting the wrong house (rather than for doing these things at all) I just moved. I didn't whine. I didn't complain. I didn't say oh poor me omg inequality GIB ME MOR RIGHTS I DESERVE THEM... I just moved away.

I didn't place myself in a tribe. But I am in one. I'm in the one where if discrimination happens to me, it's not only perfectly okay, but if I complain, it isn't okay. If I complain, I'm a bigot, transphobe, homophobe, whatever. That's fine with me. I have no problem with any of it. Them's the breaks. I'm also fine with standing up for rights of others which I do not have. I just won't call it equality.

And I do stand for things like Critical Race Theory. I think it's true that whites are oppressive. Affirmative Action should not apply to the NBA because Blacks are not oppressive. Nobody is denying anybody the right to play on the Miami Heat for being white. The cold hard truth is that whites have lower ability in basketball than Blacks. In most sports, probably. Affirmative Action should not protect white people; it wouldn't be right. But at the same time, it's not equality.

When I mentioned your side, what I meant is the pro side for legal protection from words. If everyone threatened had real protection, every other person would need to be a cop. At least, in a place where it happens all the time. You have to see it's so situational that it can't possibly apply to everyone. It won't be based on what anyone actually did. It will be a judgment call, every time. Laws like that are dangerous.

Ummm....no. I don't think that you can keep running away in fear for ever. There has to be a point where you stand up for yourself, and where you can to stand up for others. I feel sure that the more you run so the weaker in mind and body you can become.

Yes, I can understand that burglary is sometimes very difficult for the police to respond to, and where there is little or no evidence for them to work with they can't spend a lot of time on it when so much more serious crimes are happening. But home owners who actually secure their premises and spend a few quid/dollars on some hidden cameras will always get police response because there will be something for them to pursue.

[oldbadger]

My whole point was that bullying should be punished no matter who does it.
The key point things need to be done about it. The end goal is clear. We should arrive there either by slow, small steps or faster, bigger steps.
Sometimes finishing the race in a slowly manner is better then not finishing at all because I want everything fast or because its hard and I like to whine.

This^^^^^^^
Any kind of bullying is just dirty and nasty.

[alexxcJRO]

Copy/paste to save time: "Perhaps you will be able to clarify the bullying scale and age limit though so it can make sense to the rest of us an not sound like virtue signaling?"
I'm not interested in listening to you being proud of yourself. This is a debate site... Try it.

Dear sir,

This is my argument:

Convicting, punishing people of rape is a very hard yet we do it.
So wining that bulling is hard to punish is pathetic. Bulling is many times easier to punish and prove for its happening in public not in close intimate, limited space.

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...

Wrong again.
"Virtue signaling is the expression of a conspicuous, self-righteous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character."

Its not virtue signaling for

1. I don't wanna communicating my good character. I am only interested in truth.

2. I don't care what people(mostly which are simpletons) believe of me. I never cared.

I don't care to be looked in a certain moral way. In any way. This mentality has helped tremendously in my life where I simply do no want to please no one. Not even women.
The simpletons(women too) gather arround me like bugs to light because of this. They find it cool and attractive. I don't need to lift a single finger.

On the other hand politicians do care that's why they are mostly find in this position: engaging with this psychological mechanism. They need to get support and be elected/re-elected.

You typed far too many words when you could have just said: "No, I cannot clarify the bullying scale and age limit in order for it to make sense".

Is there an age limit? Would toddlers in daycare be subjected to punishment for continuing to steal the pacifier of another toddler for example?

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. Sure, your argument sounds good, but it isn't good if you cannot make it sound. Care to try?

Specifically:
Now how do you measure bullying? On a scale of 1 - 100? (Please note, rape either happened or it didn't).
At what point do fines kick in? At a score of 25? (Would this be like making fun of someone for being bald? Is making fun of a bald guy more or less bullying then making fun of someone for being gay?)
How about jail time? Would that be at 50 and above? (Perhaps after X quantities of making fun of a bald guy?)
Death penalty? 85 or higher on your bullying scale? (Would this by like making fun of a bald guy like super bad?)

1. Mirroring event in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0:

You typed far too many words when you could have just said: "No, I cannot understand alexxcJRO argument, the raping scale and age limit in order for it to make sense".
Is there an age limit? Would a teenager in middle-school/high-school be subjected to punishment for continuing to rape/sexually assault another teenager for example?
It's laughable that you cannot comprehend simple things as the argument proposed. My argument does not need clarification and you are unwilling to comprehend it.
This is what makes it a complete failure to understand simple things.

Specifically:
Now how do you measure raping? On a scale of 1 - 100?
At what point groping without consent is rape(unlawful sexual activity)? At a score of 25?
At what point consent kicks in?
How about jail time? Would that be at 50 and above? (Perhaps after X quantities of groping or touching in sexually sensitive areas)
Death penalty? 85 or higher on your bullying scale? (Would this by like forcefully fucking a "apparant slut" but who suddenly grows out of it)


2. "Virtue signaling is the expression of a conspicuous, self-righteous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character."
I don't have the intent to communicate good character. I have told you i don't give a rats ass how other people view me, or think of me. I simply do not care.
Therefore its not virtue signaling.