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]

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.

You are free to think what you will of course, but they did in fact fight over control of territory and resources and even raided other tribes villages.

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.

I see you are as puzzled by my question as I assumed you would be and that you have no advise to offer as far as who a specific piece of land would go to. I'm in the same boat as you are. "Give the land back" does 'sound' nice though, just like "we need to abolish bullying no matter who does it" does.

When people make claims that 'sound' nice, but when pressed about how it should be done and they have no answers, it does come across as virtue signaling, at least to me.
(To clarify, I don't think you said to Purple Knight: "you'll support the returning of land to North American Indians..." to virtue signal by the way. It is not my intent to suggest that.)

[oldbadger]

You are free to think what you will of course, but they did in fact fight over control of territory and resources and even raided other tribes villages.

And so.......what?
Does this mean that squabbling neighbours can be overrun and wiped out?

Again...... The N American Indians did not fence off land.

[Purple Knight]

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.

Something they do in Mexico, because foreigners aren't allowed to own land, is allow foreigners to lease it for 99 years. That's what they should do in America. You're white, you bought your house fair and square, it goes back to tribal Native American ownership in 99 years. Nobody who bought property would be deprived of it. A bunch of white people getting American soil because they are white, would be avoided.

So how about you answer me as far as how you know you can self-defend on TARDIS trips, where the law either doesn't exist, or maybe even doesn't support you? You have some sort of internal sense of right and wrong, I think.

And I think this sense of what is inherently right and wrong arises because when we're children, we complain about everything that hurts us or bothers us, and sometimes we're told to stuff it, that person has the right to do that, and we learn not to complain about getting hurt in that way. And sometimes, we're heard and someone intervenes, and we learn, no, that fellow does not have the right to hurt us in that way.

[Clownboat]

You are free to think what you will of course, but they did in fact fight over control of territory and resources and even raided other tribes villages.

And so.......what?

So what?!? I was addressing your claim.
To recap, your words were: "In fact I don't think that N.American Indians would have understood land ownership like we now do."

You have now been informed and have the opportunity to amend your incorrect thinking on the topic.

Does this mean that squabbling neighbours can be overrun and wiped out?

Now that is a leap that Evel Knievel wouldn't have made. Did someone here bring up such an argument? I would suggest starting your own thread on the topic if that is something you really want to have a discussion about. I will not participate as it seems silly to me, but perhaps you can make a reasoned argument. We'll have to wait and see.

Again...... The N American Indians did not fence off land.

They also didn't drive Corvettes. They did however fight over control of territory, resources and even raided other tribes villages. Something it seems you were unaware of that addresses your 'so what?' question above.

Copy/paste from post 171 to save time: "I see you are as puzzled by my question as I assumed you would be and that you have no advise to offer as far as who a specific piece of land would go to. I'm in the same boat as you are."

[alexxcJRO]

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?

I clearly asked about sexual harassment.
Is so funny how you desperatelly trying to obfuscate.
I ask again:
Q: Is sexual harassment wrong/evil/malevolent no matter who does it?

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?

If you can prove the bulling aka the wrong doing yes I should be punished.
But I don't think calling people morons in general is bulling dear sir.
General statements about people in general is not bulling.

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...
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?

You can report all you want as a girl can report a man of sexual harressment all she wants.
One needs to prove the allegations.
There are the same problems as with sexual harresment.
Its about the subjectivity of a person.
One might feel sexually harrassed or bullied but in fact were not.

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!

I ammended my argument from rape to all sexual offences. The analogy was not good.
Ignoring this fact is comedy.

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

I am debating by placing mirrors as a way to show the errors of your ways.

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.

I have placed mirrors to show you the errors of your ways.
Therefore according to your logic you were a bully.
You are arguing with your self.

Who argued that it does make it so?

Again you said: "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. "
Mirror: " 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."
You are debating with your self sir.
So funny.

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.

The mirrors prove otherwise.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
What argument? That I might be a whining moron that is dumb, boring and has a bad memory?

Again that was a mirror. I was just mirroring your behaviour.
If you don't like what you see maybe you should change it.
Again so funny.

You personal comments about me: "Instead of dealing with this, you play mirror games and pretend you are debating."
My mirror: "Instead of dealing with this, you keep whining, play dishonest games and pretend you are debating."

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?

Initially i said rape.
But that was not that analogous with bulling and then I ammended my argument including all sexual offences.
That fact that you keep mentioning rape in your last post is proof of what I said.

[Clownboat]

I clearly asked about sexual harassment.
Is so funny how you desperatelly trying to obfuscate.
I ask again:
Q: Is sexual harassment wrong/evil/malevolent no matter who does it?

You can stop asking as I answered it the first time.
Copy/paste to save myself time and sanity: "You offer no specifics about the harassment, so I'll answer this way. Rape yes, (sexual) harassment no (take a person that hasn't yet realized that their advances are not wanted).

Your question was answered, yet you somehow perceived my answer as obfuscation. I suggest you look up the word before you use it incorrectly again.

If you can prove the bulling aka the wrong doing yes I should be punished.
But I don't think calling people morons in general is bulling dear sir.
General statements about people in general is not bulling.

See your own words in bold and then realize that others disagree. That is my point. You tried to be clever by asking about rape, but I was able to provide a clear definition. I then pointed out that you nor anyone can do that with being a bully. You seem to have stuck your fingers in your ears and act as if that exchange didn't happen and on top of that you refer to others as being morons.

That's two strikes and I'm only into the 2nd paragraph of your reply.

You can report all you want as a girl can report a man of sexual harressment all she wants.

That is obvious. How about answering my actual question?
Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "I can take it though, but what if I couldn't. Who should I report your actions (alluding to whining morons with memory issues) to and what should be done with you? I know where I stand on this..."

One might feel sexually harrassed or bullied but in fact were not.

You're almost starting to get it I think. Now how is that definition of bullying coming? Would calling someone a moron be included or not?

I ammended my argument from rape to all sexual offences. The analogy was not good.

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "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.
Amend your argument as many times as you need if it will help you to supply a definition for bullying that clearly determines if calling someone a moron is bullying or not.

I am debating by placing mirrors as a way to show the errors of your ways.

That is not debate my friend. Notice how I answer all your questions? That is to debate. Please do me the same courtesy.

I have placed mirrors to show you the errors of your ways.
Therefore according to your logic you were a bully.
You are arguing with your self.

I'm a bully because you placed mirrors?

Again you said: "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. "
Mirror: " 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."

Is this one of your mirrors?!! This is comedy gold!
Thank you for agreeing with me that sexual harassment isn't always a crime like I said in my last reply that you ignored.

You are debating with your self sir.

I'm trying to debate you, but you seem to be trying to drag me down to your level so you can beat me with experience. See your mirrors.

The mirrors prove otherwise.

This is the kind of reply I mean when I say dragging me down to your level.

Again that was a mirror. I was just mirroring your behaviour.
If you don't like what you see maybe you should change it.
Again so funny.

Just more of the same. There is literally nothing for me to reply to here.

You personal comments about me: "Instead of dealing with this, you play mirror games and pretend you are debating."

Point out where this comment is untrue. Surely you are not going to claim you haven't been using mirrors in place of answering my debate questions.
I get the feeling that you are struggling to come up with replies to my questions. This was expected from the start as I don't have the answers either, which is my point. I don't think anyone does.

My mirror: "Instead of dealing with this, you keep whining,

First untruth and bordering on bullying.

play dishonest games

Another untruth. I'm not being dishonest nor playing games.

and pretend you are debating."

I actually am debating. Notice that when you end a sentence with a question mark, I address it.

Bottom line. I don't want people to be punished for their speech (outside of inciting violence which is already defined crime). I don't like bullying, but it is important for society to know who the bullies are. They made their bed and they should sleep in it.
When society sees bullying, society should step in. I shouldn't be able to call the cops because I feel you are trying to bully me when you alluded to me whining and then to morons with memory issues. I think we all learned things about you because you are allowed your free speech here (within the defined rules of course). I don't think law enforcement should be involved and you do. That is where we part ways.

Just imagine that I am a whining moron with memory issues that calls the cops anytime I feel you have bullied me. Perhaps you did bully, but perhaps you didn't. Would we not be catering to the whining morons? Is that something we should strive for? Can you make a good argument for doing that? Perhaps I'll amend my thinking on the matter if you can.

[Purple Knight]

Just imagine that I am a whining moron with memory issues that calls the cops anytime I feel you have bullied me. Perhaps you did bully, but perhaps you didn't. Would we not be catering to the whining morons? Is that something we should strive for? Can you make a good argument for doing that? Perhaps I'll amend my thinking on the matter if you can.

I for one don't think we need more he-said-she-said laws that ultimately punish people for failing a charisma check and not for anything they did.

It's not that bullying doesn't hurt people. It's that it's ill-defined and hard to prove, and a law that punishes people for ill-defined wrongs is going to contribute to an already corrupt and kallocratic system that already loves ganging up on people who are unpopular and trumping up any little misbehaviour they can find in order to punish them for no other reason than they suck and are unpopular. There used to be a word for that. What was it? Hmm. I forget. It can't be bullying. The people who want that are arguing against bullying.

[alexxcJRO]

You can stop asking as I answered it the first time.
Copy/paste to save myself time and sanity: "You offer no specifics about the harassment, so I'll answer this way. Rape yes, (sexual) harassment no (take a person that hasn't yet realized that their advances are not wanted).
Your question was answered, yet you somehow perceived my answer as obfuscation. I suggest you look up the word before you use it incorrectly again.

The funny comedy continues.
Mirror: "You offer no specifics about the rape, so I'll answer this way. (sexual) assault-rape no (take a person(severely drunk) that hasn't yet realized that their sexual penetration are not wanted)."

See your own words in bold and then realize that others disagree. That is my point. You tried to be clever by asking about rape, but I was able to provide a clear definition. I then pointed out that you nor anyone can do that with being a bully. You seem to have stuck your fingers in your ears and act as if that exchange didn't happen and on top of that you refer to others as being morons.
That's two strikes and I'm only into the 2nd paragraph of your reply.

The funny comedy continues.
Initially i said rape.
But that was not that analogous with bulling and then I ammended my argument including all sexual offences.
That fact that you keep mentioning rape in your last post is proof of what I said.

That is obvious. How about answering my actual question?
Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "I can take it though, but what if I couldn't. Who should I report your actions (alluding to whining morons with memory issues) to and what should be done with you? I know where I stand on this..."

Mirrors sir.

You're almost starting to get it I think. Now how is that definition of bullying coming? Would calling someone a moron be included or not?

1.
General statements about humans is not bulling. You know it deep down.
Surely you have seen bullying in action in movies or real life.
If I say most humans are morons is not bullying. If I say most humans are destructive, selfish, irresponsible, evil, malevolent, very prone to overindulgence is not bullying.
Surely you know this.


2.
Definition:
bullying
noun [ U ]
UK /ˈbʊl.i.ɪŋ/ US /ˈbʊl.i.ɪŋ/
Add to word list
the behaviour of a person who hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do:
Bullying is a problem in many schools.
Online bullying is a serious concern.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... h/bullying

bully1
[ bool-ee ]SHOW IP

See synonyms for: bullybulliedbullierbulliest on Thesaurus.com
noun,plural bul·lies.
a blustering, mean, or predatory person who, from a perceived position of relative power, intimidates, abuses, harasses, or coerces people, especially those considered unlikely to defend themselves:
playground bullies targeting children with disabilities;
a workplace bully who cuts me off when I speak.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bully

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "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.
Amend your argument as many times as you need if it will help you to supply a definition for bullying that clearly determines if calling someone a moron is bullying or not.

Mirrors sir. I was using your logic. Your arguing your a bully.

That is not debate my friend. Notice how I answer all your questions? That is to debate. Please do me the same courtesy.

Sir you have deliberatelly ignored-play dumb to the fact I was mirroring your logic and behaviour. The fact that I amended my argument.
You talk of courtesy. Comedy continues.

Just more of the same. There is literally nothing for me to reply to here.

Point out where this comment is untrue. Surely you are not going to claim you haven't been using mirrors in place of answering my debate questions.
I get the feeling that you are struggling to come up with replies to my questions. This was expected from the start as I don't have the answers either, which is my point. I don't think anyone does.
First untruth and bordering on bullying.
Another untruth. I'm not being dishonest nor playing games.

Not the words are important. The behaviour.
Sir you have deliberatelly ignored-play dumb to the fact I was mirroring your logic and behaviour. The fact that I ammended my argument.

I actually am debating. Notice that when you end a sentence with a question mark, I address it.

Q: Really you are debating?
Sir you have deliberatelly ignored-play dumb to the fact I was mirroring your logic and behaviour. The fact that I ammended my argument.

Bottom line. I don't want people to be punished for their speech (outside of inciting violence which is already defined crime). I don't like bullying, but it is important for society to know who the bullies are. They made their bed and they should sleep in it.

Two girls have committed suicide in my country two days ago because of bullying.
Off course serious action should be taken to punish such malevolent behaviour.
Make a clear legal definition. Like we did with sexual offenses or other things.

When society sees bullying, society should step in. I shouldn't be able to call the cops because I feel you are trying to bully me when you alluded to me whining and then to morons with memory issues. I think we all learned things about you because you are allowed your free speech here (within the defined rules of course). I don't think law enforcement should be involved and you do. That is where we part ways.

Just imagine that I am a whining moron with memory issues that calls the cops anytime I feel you have bullied me. Perhaps you did bully, but perhaps you didn't. Would we not be catering to the whining morons? Is that something we should strive for? Can you make a good argument for doing that? Perhaps I'll amend my thinking on the matter if you can.

The dishonesty and playing dumb games continues .
You should call the police on you. Mirrors and all. So funny.

[Clownboat]

The dishonesty and playing dumb games continues .
You should call the police on you. Mirrors and all. So funny.

Your bullying is ineffective, but I do hope you feel better. I don't even think about you outside of trying to get you to debate here, so your false insinuations are meaningless.

Not a single question posed, so zero debate questions to respond to.
I assume you still have no answers to my questions, as I also don't. We remain in the same boat.

Perhaps you will take a stab at Purple Knights post? If so, try to do so without the mirrors if you are able. The post is succinct and to the point.

I would appreciate it if you would stop making the false accusation that I'm playing dumb. Continuing to do so may be viewed as bullying. What should be done about that? You are against bullying, right?

[Purple Knight]

General statements about humans is not bulling. You know it deep down.
Surely you have seen bullying in action in movies or real life.
If I say most humans are morons is not bullying. If I say most humans are destructive, selfish, irresponsible, evil, malevolent, very prone to overindulgence is not bullying.
Surely you know this.

I think you know the answer to this is it depends, like the answer to whether anything is bullying. And standards change, don't they?



In this example, your exact case of only true statements about humanity is used. And in the 60's it's just banter. But in the 21st century, coming from someone who is not human, which matters a lot, this is deadly racism. And of course, bullying. Imagine if positions of power were reversed, and it was only one human on that ship, being told he was savage and nasty by nature. It's still true. That doesn't change. But this question of bullying always has the same answer: It depends. And that's what's so scary about putting it into law.