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?

[alexxcJRO]

I don't know, I thought we were talking about bullying. Is there an age limit to sexual harrasment/rape and did I say something on the lines of "My point was that sexual harassment/rape is wrong/evil/malevolent and should be punished no matter who does it". If I did, I should probably defend such a thing wouldn't you think? Now, look in that mirror you are so fond of plead
I don't know, I thought we were talking about bullying. Is there an age limit for sexual harrassment/rape for middle-aged children?

1.
Q: Is sexual harassment/rape is wrong/evil/malevolent no matter who does it ?
Observation1: Off course we do not punish babies, non-human animals, and the severely mentally impaired from birth cuz' non-moral agents is a thing and we are not morons like some religious folks.

2.
You were whining about age limit.
And I pointed a mirror because we have the same issue with other malevolent, evil things like sexual immoral acts or stealing or murdering. Yet we have found solutions.
Yet when it comes to bulling age limit causes problems.

Off topic and no question posed. Why are you trying to distract away from the claims you made about bullying?

We are talking of punishing bulling. You were whining OMG is hard, how do we do it age limit.
It's not off topic.
Q: Do you have short memory?

There are more than two options. General confusion because you are not answering questions posed to you is in fact on the table

Q: After all this exchange you are still confused ?
I don't think so.

Thank you for evidencing my complaint. You are not answering questions. You are pretending that you are when you are not and it is making debate very difficult.

<Snipped and un-needed definition of a mirror as it doesn't help to further debate>
Irrelevant nonsense to this point.

You were whining I was bulling you. A clever way to try to make your point about how its hard to punish bullying and/or to try to make me look hypocrite in the process. It only fired back on you because of all the mirroring event and all.

And there is the crux of it. One person may feel like they are being bullied for being called a liar. For that person, you are a bully. In your mind, you are not. Then you dare to compare this to rape! Do you actually think that rape is as unclear as bullying? It seems so with your mirror, but you are not actually debating, so it is hard to say.
Some people will feel bullied by being called a liar and just because you don't think that calling someone a liar is bullying doesn't make it so. Rape is not unclear like bullying is as you have demonstrated for us. Instead of dealing with this, you play mirror games and pretend you are debating.

Another mirror event to show the errors of your ways:

One person may feel like they are sexually harassed for being hit on in a very insistent ways with sexual remarks. For that person, you are a sexual offender-creep. In your mind, you are not. Then you dare to compare this to sexual harassment ! Do you actually think that sexual harassment is not as unclear as bullying? It seems so with your whining, but you are not actually debating, so it is hard to say.
Some people will feel sexually harassed for being hit on in a very insistent ways with sexual remarks and just because you don't think being hit on in a very insistent ways with sexual remarks is sexual harassment doesn't make it so.
Sexual offences in general are as unclear like bullying in general. Instead of dealing with this, you keep whining, play dishonest games and pretend you are debating.

So funny. I am laughing on this forum more then I laugh on comedy movies like Cocaine Bair.

Readers, I was able to supply a clear definition for rape. AlexxcJRO doesn't feel that calling someone a liar is bullying, yet others clearly will. A clear definition for bullying is needed but unavailable which makes prosecution of bullying difficult, unlike prosecuting rape.

Dishonesty in its clear form. I amended my argument because the analogy was not that analogous.
Q: Sir did i not amended my argument using the sexual unlawful act/sexual immoral acts(like going from sexual harassment culminating with rape), huh?
Don't play dumb please! It's boring!

[oldbadger]

It does mean that. The worst that will ever happen is that the police will talk to the parents. Stealing is essentially allowed, in most places in the US, if it's children doing it. Maybe in extremely nice neighbourhoods it's taken seriously. They "don't know any better" and if they do something worse than stealing, or breaking and entering, like killing somebody, or selling drugs, they go to juvenile hall.

Wrong. Incorrigible or severe bullies get expelled. Good thing too.[/quote]

Again not answering. Why do you think you can defend yourself in a lawless state?

'Cos there wouldn't be anybody to protect you, but you have never lived in a lawless state.

My point about fishing is that it bothers me but it's something I would not stop anyone from doing sustainably, even if I could. Not everything that bothers someone means action should be taken against the bothersome party. Do you disagree?

I've already explained that private waters are protected and fishing is restricted to preserve stocks.
So you don't ever eat fish...is that right?

And to introduce ''every bothersome act' in to this is a new debate.

It's very plain that you'll just continue to attack me even if I explain that attacking the person, rather than the argument, is considered bad form in debate. Telling me I wouldn't do well in a lawless state rather than addressing the issue of how rights are discovered in such a state, is an example.

You do keep on attacking and accusing me, you know.
And suddenly you want to tell me that there are rules and laws about debating.....when previously you wanted to be free of such things....true?

No I don't believe I have the right to steal or hurt people. Not even in conditions where there aren't any laws. How about you? Do you think stealing is fine if there aren't any laws, or if the law endorses it?

The law won't be there in a lawless state, PK!
But in a lawless state you'd probably get killed if you tried to steal from others.

I understand, I just don't care, because the law can be wrong.

Yes you do....... you've already quoted a debating rule to me, haven't you?

Other people. I already explained this, and now I've shown you. If I notice people respecting or defending my rights, I respect and defend those rights for everyone in turn. But if I've only been told I do not have such a right, then it's the tooth fairy and I don't do that. I need evidence before I believe something exists. The evidence I require that a universal right exists, is that I have had that right respected.

You'd do better to actually read the laws.

Yes. Besides, what I said about male promiscuity is well-supported.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity
Lesbians who had long-term partners reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women.
Psychologist J. Michael Bailey has stated that social conservatives use promiscuity among gay men as evidence of a "decadent" nature of gay men, but says "I think they're wrong. Gay men who are promiscuous are expressing an essentially masculine trait. They are doing what most heterosexual men would do if they could. They are in this way just like heterosexual men, except that they don't have women to constrain them."

Stop you there You never mentioned 'Male Promiscuity', PK!
You mentioned 'Gay Male Promiscuity'.
Thus:-
I don't know why homosexual males have this tendency toward promiscuity and drugs, but they do. Homosexual females do not.

And the article by Bailey has explained that male promiscuity is 'general' to all males.

[Purple Knight]

Again not answering. Why do you think you can defend yourself in a lawless state?

'Cos there wouldn't be anybody to protect you, but you have never lived in a lawless state.

This is really all I'm interested in and you still haven't answered. The lack of people to protect you does not give you the right to steal, does it? You agreed I didn't have the right to run a TARDIS over cavemen and take their stuff. If the lack of people to protect us, gives us unlimited rights, it would. If it gives us the right to self-defend, all that means is that we already had it.

[oldbadger]

Again not answering. Why do you think you can defend yourself in a lawless state?

'Cos there wouldn't be anybody to protect you, but you have never lived in a lawless state.

This is really all I'm interested in and you still haven't answered. The lack of people to protect you does not give you the right to steal, does it? You agreed I didn't have the right to run a TARDIS over cavemen and take their stuff. If the lack of people to protect us, gives us unlimited rights, it would. If it gives us the right to self-defend, all that means is that we already had it.

I don't think that you're ever going to get many answers, PK.
You should read about the history of your country, and the fates of the indigenous peoples that were there before. Maybe you should give back all their land and apologise for your forefathers' behaviour?
Where I live the indigenous peoples have been overrun countless times as swell, of course.

What will you do?

[Purple Knight]

Again not answering. Why do you think you can defend yourself in a lawless state?

'Cos there wouldn't be anybody to protect you, but you have never lived in a lawless state.

This is really all I'm interested in and you still haven't answered. The lack of people to protect you does not give you the right to steal, does it? You agreed I didn't have the right to run a TARDIS over cavemen and take their stuff. If the lack of people to protect us, gives us unlimited rights, it would. If it gives us the right to self-defend, all that means is that we already had it.

I don't think that you're ever going to get many answers, PK.
You should read about the history of your country, and the fates of the indigenous peoples that were there before. Maybe you should give back all their land and apologise for your forefathers' behaviour?
Where I live the indigenous peoples have been overrun countless times as swell, of course.

What will you do?

Support giving back the land in a way that avoids masses of the population who bought and paid for their land, becoming homeless, and learn from history and not steal any land myself.

See how easy it is to answer a basic question, like where rights come from?

[oldbadger]

Support giving back the land in a way that avoids masses of the population who bought and paid for their land, becoming homeless, and learn from history and not steal any land myself.

See how easy it is to answer a basic question, like where rights come from?

In the uk people who buy property that was stolen don't have any rights to it. This often happens with stolen vehicles which can get seized and handed back to lawful owners.

But ok.... you'll support the returning of land to North American Indians, which is a good answer imo.

[Clownboat]

1.
Q: Is sexual harassment/rape is wrong/evil/malevolent no matter who does it?

You offer no specifics about the harassment, so I'll answer this way. Rape yes, harassment no (take a person that hasn't yet realized that their advances are not wanted). You don't want to talk about bullying, do you?

Observation1: Off course we do not punish babies, non-human animals, and the severely mentally impaired from birth cuz' non-moral agents is a thing and we are not morons like some religious folks.

Babies don't get punished is an incorrect statement and referring to some religious folks as being morons would be to bully. If some religious people are offended by your bullying, what should we do to you?

2.
You were whining about age limit.

I wasn't whining and you're just being a bully in place of answering the direct questions that were posed to you. I can take it though, but what if I couldn't. Who should I report your actions to and what should be done with you? I know where I stand on this...

And I pointed a mirror because we have the same issue with other malevolent, evil things like sexual immoral acts or stealing or murdering. Yet we have found solutions.
Yet when it comes to bulling age limit causes problems.

You have missed the argument. Let me copy and paste it for you to see if we can get you back on track.
Copy/paste: "Readers, I was able to supply a clear definition for rape. AlexxcJRO doesn't feel that calling someone a liar (or whiner or moron) is bullying, yet others clearly will. A clear definition for bullying is needed but unavailable which makes prosecution of bullying difficult, unlike prosecuting rape.

Do you see the part about not having a clear definition? I know, ignore the actual argument and just pretend that I'm a whining moron. Derp!

We are talking of punishing bulling. You were whining OMG is hard, how do we do it age limit.

You claimed that bullying is wrong no matter who does it. That is why the age limit came up. Now you pretend it was just something I was whining about. Shame on you.

Q: Do you have short memory?

Is this another way for you to try to bully me? My memory is just fine by the way.

Q: After all this exchange you are still confused?

You are avoiding direct questions posed to you, so yes. Perhaps I'm just a confused whining moron with a short memory though, right?

You were whining I was bulling you. A clever way to try to make your point about how its hard to punish bullying and/or to try to make me look hypocrite in the process.

You don't seem to realize it, but you are in fact making my argument for me and there are those here that see your hypocrisy. Perhaps I'm just a whining moron though with a short memory?
From post 137:
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.

Could a person not feel distressed if another alludes to them possibly being a whining moron with memory issues? If I feel such distress by your actions here, what should be done to you?

It only fired back on you because of all the mirroring event and all.

You really need to give up the mirror and debate me.

Another mirror event to show the errors of your ways:

OMG, for the love of debate!

Do you actually think that sexual harassment is not as unclear as bullying? It seems so with your whining, but you are not actually debating, so it is hard to say.

You still just see me as whining huh? Am I also a moron with a short memory, or did you just bring those up out of curiosity before?
To your question and my point, sexual harassment is not as unclear as bully is.
To get you started:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical.
Want more specifics to help clarify? If so: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf

Now please do the same for bullying and then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have been a bully in this thread. Some will think so, so what should we do with you? Do you deserve a fine or jail time in your opinion.
Let me once again remind you of your own words: My point was that bullying is wrong/evil/malevolent and should be punished no matter who does it.

Some people will feel sexually harassed for being hit on in a very insistent ways with sexual remarks and just because you don't think being hit on in a very insistent ways with sexual remarks is sexual harassment doesn't make it so.

Who argued that it does make it so?

Sexual offences in general are as unclear like bullying in general.

You are mistaken. Again, see the link above that clarifies harassment and then notice how you are unable to provide such a thing about bullying. Even in this thread alone there will be those that see you as a bully.

Instead of dealing with this, you keep whining, play dishonest games and pretend you are debating.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

So funny. I am laughing on this forum more then I laugh on comedy movies like Cocaine Bair.

What you find funny is irrelevant.

Dishonesty in its clear form. I amended my argument because the analogy was not that analogous.

I'm sorry, but these words have nothing to do with what you quoted.
And that was: A clear definition for bullying is needed but unavailable which makes prosecution of bullying difficult, unlike prosecuting rape.
If you feel I was being dishonest, let me know where. Perhaps I owe you an apology?

Q: Sir did i not amended my argument using the sexual unlawful act/sexual immoral acts(like going from sexual harassment culminating with rape), huh?
Don't play dumb please! It's boring!

What argument? That I might be a whining moron that is dumb, boring and has a bad memory?

[Clownboat]

In the uk people who buy property that was stolen don't have any rights to it. This often happens with stolen vehicles which can get seized and handed back to lawful owners.

But ok.... you'll support the returning of land to North American Indians, which is a good answer imo.

I don't want this to go too far off track, but which tribe would you give the land back to? Surely we can't pretend that indigenous peoples didn't steal land from each other can we?

On the Western Plains, pre‐Columbian warfare—before the introduction of horses and guns—pitted tribes against one another for control of territory and its resources, as well as for captives and honor. Indian forces marched on foot to attack rival tribes who sometimes resided in palisaded villages.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display ... m%20Europe.

I don't see how it would be fair to give land back to the Ojibwe tribe if they had stolen it from the Shawnee. What if the Shawnee had taken the land from the Cherokee previously and so on? In this hypothetical, do we give the land back to the Cherokee, Ojibwe, Shawnee or some earlier tribe? Now try to make this work for the rest of the country... Seems impossible to do this fairly, but I admit that perhaps I'm missing something , so I ask.

Here is an alphabetical list of federally recognized tribes to drive this point (there are a lot):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ted_States

Is it possible that some ideas, even ones that sound good are not feasible to implement? Fairly punishing bullies seems to be on par with trying to give the land back to the tribe that actually deserves it IMO. In some cases, it will be clear, but it is the unclear occasions that I choose to not ignore for an argument that I agree sounds good (punish bullies or give Indians their land back).

[otseng]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #161]

Moderator Comment

Please tone it down with the incivility.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #161]

[oldbadger]

I don't want this to go too far off track, but which tribe would you give the land back to? Surely we can't pretend that indigenous peoples didn't steal land from each other can we?

Not like we fenced it off to keep for ever.
In fact I don't think that N.American Indians would have understood land ownership like we now do.
But the situation was similar here in the UK when the land owners fenced off the vast common lands which could be used before by everybody.
The Australians did exactly the same thing to the aborigines, then gave a lot of it back, then redacted that law and now have given some back yet again.