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]

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?

Was a crime committed?

Fear is internal as no one can give you fear or place fear in you. It should not be a right for people to not feel fear.

No, this is not me advocating for crime. Crimes should be punished as I have said all along. Making it a crime to have someone do something that caused yourself to be scared would fill the jails up with Alpha males and the streets with Betas for one thing. Surely being an Alpha male is not criminal in itself.

Therefore, 'that man made me scared' it not something I can get behind as being a criminal act if that is why you asked your question. If that is not why you asked, then see 'was a crime committed'. What can people do when a crime is committed? They can report it.

[Clownboat]

It's laughable that you cannot comprehend simple things as the argument proposed.

Well, aren't you the bully. When you cannot explain your position, do you always resort to bullying tactics, or just in this case when pretending to be against bullying? Trying to slay us with irony perhaps?

My argument does not need clarification and you are unwilling to comprehend it.

Yes it does and I have asked the specifics twice now. Instead of defending your stance, you have turned into a bully that claims I can't comprehend. Hopefully you are not the type of person that makes fun of mentally challenged people.

This is what makes it a complete failure to understand simple things.

Can you try again? This sentence doesn't make sense, but I am willing to try to comprehend it. Or... you could just belittle me instead I suppose.

Now how do you measure raping? On a scale of 1 - 100?

Rape was either committed or not. A person is either convicted of it or not.
At what point does your bullying above justify legal action against you? You have given me much distress by saying I cannot comprehend simple things and that I'm unwilling to. Then you allude to complete failure... do you mean myself? Am I a complete failure? Why are you picking on me?

In reality... I kid. To me, you are just being a bully using bullying tactics to try to make your point. Maybe you should continue to call me names and allude to my lack of being able to comprehend things in place of trying to clarify my questions I have asked of you twice.

At what point groping without consent is rape(unlawful sexual activity)? At a score of 25?

Nope, but thanks for asking a question in place of bullying.
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” = Rape
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/bl ... ition-rape

At what point consent kicks in?

When it's given naturally.

How about jail time? Would that be at 50 and above? (Perhaps after X quantities of groping or touching in sexually sensitive areas)

You seem to be all over the place. Are you now arguing for groping to be rape?
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” = Rape
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/bl ... ition-rape

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)

Please clarify this question. I am willing to attempt to comprehend.

What would actually work against bullies would be if society stood up to them. If others were to berate you for your bullying in this post for example, perhaps you would do better next time and would try a different approach. What I don't believe to be a good idea is for me to call the police and claim that you have distressed me so much that you deserve to be fined or placed in jail.

[Purple Knight]

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.

Oh no, everyone knew who these kids were. The police actually warned me about putting up cameras. One of the kids had mental illness (supposedly) and thus couldn't really give consent to being recorded, even if I put up the right signs. At least, that's what the cop told me. So if I did such a thing, it not only wouldn't hold up in court, I'd be sued. That's what the cop said and I know very well that anyone can be sued and lose, thereby getting punished for anything, whether it's against the law or not.

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.

So how do you make a determination as to whether you have a certain right or not? I do not have the right to free ice cream any time I want it. That seems obvious, doesn't it? But, in cases where it is not obvious, how do you make the determination?

The only logical way to know you have a right is if someone has respected it, on at least one occasion. Then it might exist on more occasions and there would at least be the question about whether the instance in which that thing was not given, was the instance of wrongdoing.

I know I do not have a right to free ice cream whenever I want it because nobody has ever given me free ice cream whenever I want it. When people start giving me free ice cream whenever I want it, but there are people to whom it is denied, I'll certainly stand up for them, and it will be under the banner of equality. Before that I just have to say there is probably no such right, at least not a universal one. Is there a better way than observing reality to determine which rights exist and which ones do not?

[Purple Knight]

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.

Let's say this is true. What do you want to do with people who can't comprehend the degree of nuance and situational differences that you do? Should laws be made to ignore them, and is it just fine that they will, with the best of intentions, end up breaking laws simply for failure to understand them, and end up imprisoned? Or does society have to go together, laws made with a positive right endowed to every individual, to have that law explained to them until they understand it if they're expected to follow it?

[alexxcJRO]

So funny how quickly you dropped the underage critique.
It disappeared faster then the speed of light.

Well, aren't you the bully. When you cannot explain your position, do you always resort to bullying tactics, or just in this case when pretending to be against bullying? Trying to slay us with irony perhaps?
Yes it does and I have asked the specifics twice now. Instead of defending your stance, you have turned into a bully that claims I can't comprehend. Hopefully you are not the type of person that makes fun of mentally challenged people.
Can you try again? This sentence doesn't make sense, but I am willing to try to comprehend it. Or... you could just belittle me instead I suppose.

Q: What is happening?
Dear sir there was a serious mirroring event. Did you missed it?
I was using your words. I simply copy pasted your words and replaced some.
I was just a putting a mirror. You don't like what you see?
This is rich.

Rape was either committed or not. A person is either convicted of it or not.
At what point does your bullying above justify legal action against you? You have given me much distress by saying I cannot comprehend simple things and that I'm unwilling to. Then you allude to complete failure... do you mean myself? Am I a complete failure? Why are you picking on me?
In reality... I kid. To me, you are just being a bully using bullying tactics to try to make your point. Maybe you should continue to call me names and allude to my lack of being able to comprehend things in place of trying to clarify my questions I have asked of you twice.

Yes sir if that was really happening. But is not see above.
Multiple types of punishments depending on how serious it is.
From fines to jail times if serious physical violence is involved.
Bulling either happened or it didn't. Same logic.

At what point does your bullying above justify legal action against you? You have given me much distress by saying I cannot comprehend simple things and that I'm unwilling to. Then you allude to complete failure... do you mean myself? Am I a complete failure? Why are you picking on me?
In reality... I kid. To me, you are just being a bully using bullying tactics to try to make your point. Maybe you should continue to call me names and allude to my lack of being able to comprehend things in place of trying to clarify my questions I have asked of you twice.

We are comparing unlawful sexual activity with bulling. A bit a fail on my part. Mention rape but was thinking of unlawful sexual activity.

Some unlawful sexual activity is legally-dictionary called sexual harassment and its punishable.
Some unlawful sexual activity is legally-dictionary called raped and its punishable.
Same with bulling it needs demarcations and different separate definitions and be punished.

When it's given naturally.

But this is not verbally given most of the time.
It more of a non-verbal communication type thing.
Sometimes there is mixed signals/missed signals and problems happen.
Things are complicated here as well.
You just wanna make them more simple then they are to have an argument.

You seem to be all over the place. Are you now arguing for groping to be rape?
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” = Rape
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/bl ... ition-rape

Its more like I should have mentioned sexual unlawful activity which has many forms.

Please clarify this question. I am willing to attempt to comprehend.

The boundary between liking a bit rough and not liking it anymore is difficult to fully see and understand. A rough encounter can easily go rape/sexual unlawful activity route.
Things are complicated dear sir no matter how one desperately want to make them otherwise.

What would actually work against bullies would be if society stood up to them. If others were to berate you for your bullying in this post for example, perhaps you would do better next time and would try a different approach. What I don't believe to be a good idea is for me to call the police and claim that you have distressed me so much that you deserve to be fined or placed in jail.

No need for lying.
Things need to be proven in debate and in court.
You could claim anything. Claims mean nothing without evidence or argument.
The whole previous post was just a serious mirror event.
Please sir call the police on your self.
So funny.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Let's say this is true. What do you want to do with people who can't comprehend the degree of nuance and situational differences that you do? Should laws be made to ignore them, and is it just fine that they will, with the best of intentions, end up breaking laws simply for failure to understand them, and end up imprisoned? Or does society have to go together, laws made with a positive right endowed to every individual, to have that law explained to them until they understand it if they're expected to follow it?

1. The post you responded was a mirror event. Having some fun.
2. Some evils are necessary when living in a complicated, restrictive reality.
You cannot be plagued by inaction because one cannot make a perfect system.
We punish murderers and serial killers using an imperfect system even though sometime some innocents might get punished wrongly.
This line between punishing the guilty and wrongly punishing the innocent sometimes is hard to not cross. Hard waters to navigate.
It does not mean that it justify sitting on one's butt like a goddam weakling and coward.

[oldbadger]

Was a crime committed?

In the UK, yes.

Threatening behaviour.
Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986
To be convicted of this offence, the guilty party must intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person.

And so, where I live, you cannot put people in fear deliberately.

How about where you live?
Where do you live?

[oldbadger]

Oh no, everyone knew who these kids were. The police actually warned me about putting up cameras. One of the kids had mental illness (supposedly) and thus couldn't really give consent to being recorded, even if I put up the right signs. At least, that's what the cop told me. So if I did such a thing, it not only wouldn't hold up in court, I'd be sued. That's what the cop said and I know very well that anyone can be sued and lose, thereby getting punished for anything, whether it's against the law or not.

That's all very strange........... you believe in everything a cop tells you.
You've just got to tell me where you live, PK, because I don't know any place in a Western country where you need to get permission to put up cameras either inside or outside your private home. The only provision in all this that to put up hidden cameras in toilets and such places that visitors might use is a crime.
And the local authorities don't need permision to put up cameras in public places either.
So whoever told you that was laughing at you, or thought you to be naive.

So how do you make a determination as to whether you have a certain right or not? I do not have the right to free ice cream any time I want it. That seems obvious, doesn't it? But, in cases where it is not obvious, how do you make the determination?

You have to take notice of the legislation and bye-laws in your area.
And 'Yes' you do have the right to FREE ice cream any time that you want to take advantage of such kindnesses.

The only logical way to know you have a right is if someone has respected it, on at least one occasion. Then it might exist on more occasions and there would at least be the question about whether the instance in which that thing was not given, was the instance of wrongdoing.

the only logical way to know if you have a right is to read the local bye-laws and national legislations.

I know I do not have a right to free ice cream whenever I want it because nobody has ever given me free ice cream whenever I want it. When people start giving me free ice cream whenever I want it, but there are people to whom it is denied, I'll certainly stand up for them, and it will be under the banner of equality. Before that I just have to say there is probably no such right, at least not a universal one. Is there a better way than observing reality to determine which rights exist and which ones do not?

Ice cream is only free when it is offered, PK. And the idea of you marching around outside a shop (offering free ice cream) with a placard because you're angry that people further along that street don't know about it is great fun.

[Purple Knight]

Oh no, everyone knew who these kids were. The police actually warned me about putting up cameras. One of the kids had mental illness (supposedly) and thus couldn't really give consent to being recorded, even if I put up the right signs. At least, that's what the cop told me. So if I did such a thing, it not only wouldn't hold up in court, I'd be sued. That's what the cop said and I know very well that anyone can be sued and lose, thereby getting punished for anything, whether it's against the law or not.

That's all very strange........... you believe in everything a cop tells you.
You've just got to tell me where you live, PK, because I don't know any place in a Western country where you need to get permission to put up cameras either inside or outside your private home. The only provision in all this that to put up hidden cameras in toilets and such places that visitors might use is a crime.
And the local authorities don't need permision to put up cameras in public places either.
So whoever told you that was laughing at you, or thought you to be naive.

Probably, but they had the power, so. (I didn't ask permission. I had already put up the cameras. The cop asked me if it was to do with the vandalism. I said yes. That's when it turned into me trying to get someone who couldn't consent to being recorded, and if it was aimed at them, I could be sued.)

So how do you make a determination as to whether you have a certain right or not? I do not have the right to free ice cream any time I want it. That seems obvious, doesn't it? But, in cases where it is not obvious, how do you make the determination?

You have to take notice of the legislation and bye-laws in your area.
And 'Yes' you do have the right to FREE ice cream any time that you want to take advantage of such kindnesses.

You well know what I asked. You're refusing to answer. I don't have a right to free ice cream any time I want. You turned that into I do have a right to free ice cream when someone offers.

I'll ask again: How do you determine if you have a right or not? This can't be to do with extant laws since if it was, there would never be any change of laws argued. I'm talking about rights, not laws.

If it's about extant laws, then, in the US, you lose, because the 2nd Amendment protects free speech. If that's not always a good law because it fails to respect the inherent rights of people not to be bullied, then you need to explain how you know a right not to be bullied exists.

[oldbadger]

Probably, but they had the power, so. (I didn't ask permission. I had already put up the cameras. The cop asked me if it was to do with the vandalism. I said yes. That's when it turned into me trying to get someone who couldn't consent to being recorded, and if it was aimed at them, I could be sued.)

You didn't tell me where you are, but that is just nonsense....what you were told.
When you go out just look about you, at all those public and private owned cctv cameras!

You well know what I asked. You're refusing to answer. I don't have a right to free ice cream any time I want. You turned that into I do have a right to free ice cream when someone offers.

I'll ask again: How do you determine if you have a right or not? This can't be to do with extant laws since if it was, there would never be any change of laws argued. I'm talking about rights, not laws.

No i Didn't, I told you that free ice cream is exactly that....there either is some or none.
However, you don't often answer my questions, such 'What country, state, county do you live in?'

Where I live there are so many Freedoms........ for example, the foreshore outside my home is 'Freeground' for any people to roam and collect oysters, cockles, etc etc, but a mile further along it is not, because a person holds a charter which gives them sole rights to do exactly that. So I can collect free oysters for breakfast any time I like on the Free ground outside my home.

But ice cream is only FREE when it's offered for free....... otherwise it doesn't exist.

[quote[If it's about extant laws, then, in the US, you lose, because the 2nd Amendment protects free speech. If that's not always a good law because it fails to respect the inherent rights of people not to be bullied, then you need to explain how you know a right not to be bullied exists. [/quote]
If you think that you can go out in to public places and insult, threaten or upsert folks then you're probably in for a nasty surprise.

Again..... where do you live? I live in Kent, England.