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]

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.

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."

I'll stick with my claim, that N.A. Indians did not think of land in the same way as you do. I think that you're just bulldozing your ideas to justify your country's history of pillage, looting and genocide. But don't take that too harshly because nearly all cultures and nationalities have done that in their time.

And your analogies such as 'they didn't drive corvettes' isn't going to help you, a very strange attempt at debating, I think.

That some Indian tribes might have fought with others and stole items or girls (new genes) is a classic example for the anthropologists to review. You would need to check out on all that.

It's no good us folks pointing at such victims and calling them 'baddies' to justify our pasts.... we need to pick up our dirt, you know.

[alexxcJRO]

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?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.

The fact that you can't comprehend the way I was debating or did not like it or most likely was playing dumb to desperately avoid embarrassment does not concern me at all.
Saying someone is dishonest or plays dumb is not bulling sir.
People are accused here on this debate site left and right of dishonesty/dishonest tactics-debate style. Off course this is not bulling, is just pointing to the dishonest behaviour and tactics.
Definition:

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

bully1
[ bool-ee ]SHOW IP
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

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Irrelevant.

1. I was making a general statement about humans. Where in only humanity exists so far. I was not an alien making that statement.
So accusations about racism is ridiculous. Analogy irrelevant.
To make prejudices and discrimination based on race is stupid because genetically we(all humans) are the same specie. No population of humans are genetically superior or inferior. Therefore it is wrong.

2. Again with oh its hard to prosecute and make legal definitions.
Like we don't have the same difficulties with sexual offences. Where subjectivity plays an important part.

[boatsnguitars]

Really? Can you name some prominent feminized men who have gone to war?

I would say it is pretty much all of them, here is the most recent American ones.



And don't forget the Viceroy of the Ukraine, who will be the first to get the world into a thermonuclear exchange.

https://rumble.com/v31gdxy-trump-corrup ... war-3.html

Your general hypothesis is: "Forget all the wars you've seen conducted by men - focus on the few examples of women and 'feminized men' going to war. Ignore the violent men in prison, or dominating the violent sports, or majority of domstic violence abusers being men! It's women who are violent - and violence is what we don't want to breed out of Men!

Classic confused bigotry. They don't want men to be "softened" (feminized) - because women are violent...

Evolution has spent millions of years in honing our gender roles, and now we think we can overturn the whole project in a few generations.
There is a reason why young black men are responsible for half the murders in our country. I think the reason for that is that these men are predominantly raised by single mothers, with no father living in the home. And without good, strong masculine men to teach them their gender role in life they will ad lib and end up becoming violent criminals.
I have never seen a good argument that would conclude, that feminizing men is going to do us any good, have you?

Just to confirm. You are saying that women are war mongers as evidenced by "feminized men" going to war AND that being tough/violent/etc. is a male trait that we ought to preserve.

The argument is that "feminizing men" isn't even a thing. It's something that only exists in your head. Perhaps you mean "being a gentleman"? Is that what you are arguing against?

[Purple Knight]

Irrelevant.

1. I was making a general statement about humans. Where in only humanity exists so far. I was not an alien making that statement.
So accusations about racism is ridiculous. Analogy irrelevant.

You say it's irrelevant, but I was able to find an example of doing something you said was okay, that is clearly not okay. You're able to tie down the reasons now, but you didn't then. So just think about that when it comes to someone getting caught by this law you want, who has no idea what is alright, and what isn't, until he's in court.

Also I don't know you're not an alien. I can't see you. You tell me aliens don't exist, but if you are one and that makes your statements evil and racist, you've got a proven motive to lie, don't you? Spock is half, and identifies with his Vulcan half. Maybe you're 1/64th. At that point you're probably fine to make those kind of comments about humanity, especially since they're flat facts. But who knows exactly when it becomes not okay?

2. Again with oh its hard to prosecute and make legal definitions.
Like we don't have the same difficulties with sexual offences. Where subjectivity plays an important part.

I don't agree with any laws that are subjective. Laws should be objective. I don't think it's rape if the "victim" got herself drunk and then has buyer's remorse.

People have the right to know if what they are doing is going to land them in jail before they do it. And people have the right to be treated equally to someone else who did the same thing.

[alexxcJRO]

You say it's irrelevant, but I was able to find an example of doing something you said was okay, that is clearly not okay. You're able to tie down the reasons now, but you didn't then. So just think about that when it comes to someone getting caught by this law you want, who has no idea what is alright, and what isn't, until he's

Q: Wait what?
Q: I was not able to tie the reasons then?
Evidence for your positive claim.

Also I don't know you're not an alien. I can't see you. You tell me aliens don't exist, but if you are one and that makes your statements evil and racist, you've got a proven motive to lie, don't you? Spock is half, and identifies with his Vulcan half. Maybe you're 1/64th. At that point you're probably fine to make those kind of comments about humanity, especially since they're flat facts. But who knows exactly when it becomes not okay?

1.
You know deep down making general statements about humanity while being a member of humanity is not racism. So you have to make me an alien.
There are definitions and concepts which matter. We can't just say anything means anything.
Conversation would be impossible if we would not agree and respect definitions.

Q: Why should I agree with anything you said up there?

It anything goes maybe you said: " s.fnbjhsgfo8iuqwgkrjqvwdmn avgudR EYUI QVEK jBEQJ FEYUD. "
There is a line between honest debate and dishonest one. Arguing something and stretching the understanding beyond the limits of definitions, concepts for the sake of arguing and not losing an argument is crossing the line.

2.
My understanding clearly does not betray a being that was able to came here from tens/hundreds/thousands/or more lights years away. A being belonging to a type 2->type 5 civilization capable of interstellar flights which off course would imply all kinds of specific knowledge/understanding about the universe, certain biological-technological improvements which I clearly do not show.
Off course I am a human.

Here look:

I don't agree with any laws that are subjective. Laws should be objective. I don't think it's rape if the "victim" got herself drunk and then has buyer's remorse.
People have the right to know if what they are doing is going to land them in jail before they do it. And people have the right to be treated equally to someone else who did the same thing.

Q: You don't agree with there being laws for sexual offenses(sexual harassment, sexual activity with a child, child pornography, rape)?
Q: What are you arguing here?

[Purple Knight]

You say it's irrelevant, but I was able to find an example of doing something you said was okay, that is clearly not okay. You're able to tie down the reasons now, but you didn't then. So just think about that when it comes to someone getting caught by this law you want, who has no idea what is alright, and what isn't, until he's

Q: Wait what?
Q: I was not able to tie the reasons then?
Evidence for your positive claim.

You made some 100% true statements about humanity that were nonetheless nasty and you basically said, of course it's okay. I found an example of those kinds of statements (true, but still nasty) being not okay. You then had to go and amend your original statement, and again, you act like it's absolutely obvious that a human can say those things, and a non-human cannot.

Do you realise that if you're a lawmaker, you can't go back and amend the law on the fly because of an edge case? The law has to apply to everyone. That's why, if some people should be able to get away with it, there should not be a law.

You know deep down making general statements about humanity while being a member of humanity is not racism. So you have to make me an alien.

To make a point. The law should treat people equally. You're free to disagree but you want to make a law that says what? That you can say those things and some alien can't? What if you baited him, he agreed with you, and you recorded it? Or do you want the jury to just adjudicate who can say it and who can't on the fly? In which case they'll just condemn whoever their personal biases want them to condemn.

My understanding clearly does not betray a being that was able to came here from tens/hundreds/thousands/or more lights years away. A being belonging to a type 2->type 5 civilization capable of interstellar flights which off course would imply all kinds of specific knowledge/understanding about the universe, certain biological-technological improvements which I clearly do not show.

And I don't know math. It is easier to pretend not to understand something you do understand, than to pretend you positively do understand that which you do not. (I am kidding. I accept that you are a human.)

Q: You don't agree with there being laws for sexual offenses(sexual harassment, sexual activity with a child, child pornography, rape)?
Q: What are you arguing here?

Just that people have the right to know if something they're about to do is illegal before they do it. Do you disagree?

[alexxcJRO]

You then had to go and amend your original statement, and again, you act like it's absolutely obvious that a human can say those things, and a non-human cannot.

Do you realise that if you're a lawmaker, you can't go back and amend the law on the fly because of an edge case? The law has to apply to everyone. That's why, if some people should be able to get away with it, there should not be a law.

Nonsense.
Sir I was talking of bulling.
I said I was not bulling when I was making general remarks about humanity. Nor was I a racist for I am a member of humanity. Concepts and words have meanings. Not everything means everything one wants in a pathetic desperation to be right.
Stop with the straw-man. Its boring.

To make a point. The law should treat people equally. You're free to disagree but you want to make a law that says what? That you can say those things and some alien can't? What if you baited him, he agreed with you, and you recorded it? Or do you want the jury to just adjudicate who can say it and who can't on the fly? In which case they'll just condemn whoever their personal biases want them to condemn.

I agree that the law should treat people equally.
But there is no aliens sir. No Star Trek confederations of aliens.
Even if there were I am not an alien. I was not racist nor a bully for making general remarks about Homo Sapiens Sapiens to which I am a part too.
Word and concepts have meanings though.

And I don't know math. It is easier to pretend not to understand something you do understand, than to pretend you positively do understand that which you do not. (I am kidding. I accept that you are a human.)

I can provide further evidence I am a human if you desire. LOL.

Just that people have the right to know if something they're about to do is illegal before they do it. Do you disagree?

You cannot do it practically. Teach all humans all the thousands or more of laws with all their complexity.
“ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Common sir deep down we know bulling(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) it is wrong while doing it.
The law is there to keep the peace and order in society because most humans are destructive, selfish, irresponsible, evil, malevolent, very prone to overindulgence.
Most humans cannot by their own will behave in an orderly, constructive, benevolent, altruist fashion.

[Purple Knight]

Just that people have the right to know if something they're about to do is illegal before they do it. Do you disagree?

You cannot do it practically. Teach all humans all the thousands or more of laws with all their complexity.
“ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Common sir deep down we know bulling(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) it is wrong while doing it.
The law is there to keep the peace and order in society because most humans are destructive, selfish, irresponsible, evil, malevolent, very prone to overindulgence.
Most humans cannot by their own will behave in an orderly, constructive, benevolent, altruist fashion.

I agree. Humans can't behave in an orderly fashion on their own. But how are laws supposed to help people behave if they're not made in a way that lets people know if whether or not something they are about to do is against the law, before they act?

Seems to me that after doing their best and getting punished anyway for the sixth time, they're going to give up on following the law. Can't avoid punishment anyway so why bother? Could be why the prisons are so full.

A law that enables a horde of charismatic Karens to jail anyone they don't like because "He bullied me!" is not helpful to society or humanity in any way.

[alexxcJRO]

Just that people have the right to know if something they're about to do is illegal before they do it. Do you disagree?

You cannot do it practically. Teach all humans all the thousands or more of laws with all their complexity.
“ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Common sir deep down we know bulling(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) it is wrong while doing it.
The law is there to keep the peace and order in society because most humans are destructive, selfish, irresponsible, evil, malevolent, very prone to overindulgence.
Most humans cannot by their own will behave in an orderly, constructive, benevolent, altruist fashion.

I agree. Humans can't behave in an orderly fashion on their own. But how are laws supposed to help people behave if they're not made in a way that lets people know if whether or not something they are about to do is against the law, before they act?

Seems to me that after doing their best and getting punished anyway for the sixth time, they're going to give up on following the law. Can't avoid punishment anyway so why bother? Could be why the prisons are so full.

A law that enables a horde of charismatic Karens to jail anyone they don't like because "He bullied me!" is not helpful to society or humanity in any way.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any nuance.

Don't bore with false dichotomies: either fascist police state or anarchy where we let criminals do whatever they want. Black and white simplistic garbage.
There is a difference between enforcing the law and keep the order because most humans are unable by there own free will to not steal, rape, murder, bully and having a police-fascist state.
Karens exist not because we have robust laws but because they are doing to well, having no problems and that leads to princess like behaviour where one complains of the smallest things.

There needs to be a balance between not indulging a Karen like society but at the same time not letting one full of crime either.
There is no rational justification for letting bulling running rampart in schools.

Q: Have you bullied sir in your youth and your trying to find justification for your acts?

Curious!