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?

[Purple Knight]

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?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any nuance.

Really? It's nonsense that the law can't help people behave unless they know whether or not the action they want to do breaks a law, before they do it? Yeah no.

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

Curious!

It's irrelevant but I was on the receiving end. At one point I was beaten so badly my leg was broken. But it was selective enforcement of more protective rules than you could fit on the broad side of a barn in small print, that hurt me most. If I hit back, it was detention for weeks, removal of all privileges like field trips, and threats of expulsion. If there were no rules at all, I could have just hit back. I would not have had to win, to deter them, it would have only been necessary to wound them enough to make it not worth it to try.

[alexxcJRO]

Really? It's nonsense that the law can't help people behave unless they know whether or not the action they want to do breaks a law, before they do it? Yeah no.

We already been over this.
We are moving in circle like headless chickens.

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), murdering, stealing, raping it is wrong while doing it and after.
The law is there just to keep the peace and order in society because most humans are destructive, selfish, irresponsible, evil, malevolent, very prone to overindulgence. Most humans can't help themselves but behave in an evil, malevolent, selfish manner.

I don't think anyone can play dumb and say I did not knew rape, murder, stealing, physical assault, domestic violence was wrong and therefore probably there is most likely a law against it.

It's irrelevant but I was on the receiving end. At one point I was beaten so badly my leg was broken. But it was selective enforcement of more protective rules than you could fit on the broad side of a barn in small print, that hurt me most. If I hit back, it was detention for weeks, removal of all privileges like field trips, and threats of expulsion. If there were no rules at all, I could have just hit back. I would not have had to win, to deter them, it would have only been necessary to wound them enough to make it not worth it to try.

Imagine if bullies were not allowed to run rampart and bulling was punished.
No need for defending yourself in a place where children, teenagers should feel relaxed and safe.

[Purple Knight]

Really? It's nonsense that the law can't help people behave unless they know whether or not the action they want to do breaks a law, before they do it? Yeah no.

We already been over this.
We are moving in circle like headless chickens.

Because you outright said the law is necessary to help people behave better, I pointed out that it can't do that unless the law is clear, and you continued to defend the law being unclear.

Imagine if bullies were not allowed to run rampart and bulling was punished.
No need for defending yourself in a place where children, teenagers should feel relaxed and safe.

That's a pipe dream. The pecking order is not disturbed by people without power wanting it gone, because they do and it persists. People with power don't want it gone, or it would be gone. Therefore a law that allows people with power to arbitrarily decide who was bullied, will not get rid of it either. It will just let them punish people they want to punish.

[alexxcJRO]

Because you outright said the law is necessary to help people behave better, I pointed out that it can't do that unless the law is clear, and you continued to defend the law being unclear.

Q: When I was talking of unclearness of the law?
I was talking of existence.

That's a pipe dream. The pecking order is not disturbed by people without power wanting it gone, because they do and it persists. People with power don't want it gone, or it would be gone. Therefore a law that allows people with power to arbitrarily decide who was bullied, will not get rid of it either. It will just let them punish people they want to punish.

By this logic we should not let any laws exist or any police, anti-corruption institutions because some people in power might abuse their power.
Off course some powerful people use the law to inflict harm when the tools are available.
DNA an institution which should enforce the law in my country has done so. Used the tools for a period of time to implement an regiment of terror because the institution got corrupted and infiltrated by evil and malevolent individuals.
When evil and malevolent people infiltrate the institutions which should keep the law and order off course evil and malevolent things happen.
That does not justify not having the laws or the institutions.
The smallest evil is still with laws and institutions in place.

[Purple Knight]

By this logic we should not let any laws exist or any police, anti-corruption institutions because some people in power might abuse their power.

We should avoid any he-said-she-said laws that just let the people with power decide arbitrarily what happened, whose word to take, and who to punish, yes. If the law gives people with power a blank cheque to punish their enemies, then it is a bad law.

[alexxcJRO]

By this logic we should not let any laws exist or any police, anti-corruption institutions because some people in power might abuse their power.

We should avoid any he-said-she-said laws that just let the people with power decide arbitrarily what happened, whose word to take, and who to punish, yes. If the law gives people with power a blank cheque to punish their enemies, then it is a bad law.

Ridiculous. Nobody said to make laws "he-said-she-said".

When prosecuting usually law enforcement uses more then "he-said-she-said".
We have eye-witness testimonies from multiple sources, video footage, physical evidence.
Bulling in my school involved physical assault, putting people with heads in toilets, hanging them on hallways hangers, stealing things.
Plus these offences by definition requires repetition.
Online bulling on social media leaves an online footprint which can be easily tracked and proved.
Nobody needs to make "he-said-she-said" laws.

[oldbadger]

By this logic we should not let any laws exist or any police, anti-corruption institutions because some people in power might abuse their power.
Off course some powerful people use the law to inflict harm when the tools are available.
DNA an institution which should enforce the law in my country has done so. Used the tools for a period of time to implement an regiment of terror because the institution got corrupted and infiltrated by evil and malevolent individuals.
When evil and malevolent people infiltrate the institutions which should keep the law and order off course evil and malevolent things happen.
That does not justify not having the laws or the institutions.
The smallest evil is still with laws and institutions in place.

I think that some members might be anarchists.....possibly?

But I would bet that if they got robbed or burgled they's be calling for the cops fast enough!

[Clownboat]

I'll stick with my claim, that N.A. Indians did not think of land in the same way as you do.

You are free to ignore the information provided. You can lead a horse as they say...

I think that you're just bulldozing your ideas to justify your country's history of pillage, looting and genocide.

What you think means nothing in debate and your illogical emotional appeal that I'm trying to justify pillaging, looting and genocide is just too silly for me to even address.

But don't take that too harshly because nearly all cultures and nationalities have done that in their time.

Like the American Indians. You know, what started this between you and I, but distract away.

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

See the bold.

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.

To the bold. This is nothing but a case of ignoring the evidence. There is no might. History is history.

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.

Yup.

[Clownboat]

Nobody said to make laws "he-said-she-said".

I say you have tried to bullied me here in this thread. You say you haven't. It doesn't get more he-said-she-said than that and you are in fact arguing to pass bullying laws.

We have eye-witness testimonies from multiple sources, video footage, physical evidence.

Except for when we don't, then we only have he-said-she-said and that is a major problem when arguing to get law enforcement involved like you are doing. You are obviously trying to keep the focus on when bullying may be more clear (video footage or physical evidence) but you ignore the more common cases of bullying that takes place. Head in the sand as they say.

Bulling in my school involved physical assault, putting people with heads in toilets, hanging them on hallways hangers, stealing things.

These examples you provided are of assault or theft and are already a crime. Why do you fail to realize this? Is murder just bullying too? Between your mirror games and now being confused about what is assault and what is bullying, you are not doing well here I'm afraid and only muddy the waters more. You make my argument for me.

Online bulling on social media leaves an online footprint which can be easily tracked and proved.

I realize that in extreme cases we could all agree that bullying took place, but you fail to realize the he-said-she-said that will take place when there is disagreement. You can't just point to instances where we might agree that bullying may have taken place to magically make the instances when there is disagreement go away, like in this thread or on the morning school bus ride.

Nobody needs to make "he-said-she-said" laws.

Bullying laws will lead to he-said-she-said.
I say you did here, you say you didn't. Purple Knights words now come in to play.

Purple Knight: "Therefore a law that allows people with power to arbitrarily decide who was bullied, will not get rid of it either. It will just let them punish people they want to punish."

I'm all about enforcing laws, not feelings.
Someone doesn't feel that they had their head put in the toilet. That assault either happened or it didn't and calling physical assault bullying makes things worse. Insinuating that someone has memory issues will be perceived as bullying by some and not bullying by others, unlike the assault and theft scenarios you brought up in place of bullying scenarios.

[Purple Knight]

By this logic we should not let any laws exist or any police, anti-corruption institutions because some people in power might abuse their power.

We should avoid any he-said-she-said laws that just let the people with power decide arbitrarily what happened, whose word to take, and who to punish, yes. If the law gives people with power a blank cheque to punish their enemies, then it is a bad law.

Ridiculous. Nobody said to make laws "he-said-she-said".

When prosecuting usually law enforcement uses more then "he-said-she-said".
We have eye-witness testimonies from multiple sources, video footage, physical evidence.
Bulling in my school involved physical assault, putting people with heads in toilets, hanging them on hallways hangers, stealing things.
Plus these offences by definition requires repetition.
Online bulling on social media leaves an online footprint which can be easily tracked and proved.
Nobody needs to make "he-said-she-said" laws.

What can't be tracked and proven is exactly what, exactly when, with exactly how much provocation, counts as bullying. When the jury is made up of white people, they will excuse white people and convict POCs for the same exact utterance, and precedent will mean nothing, "because context."

And it will be he-said-she-said when it's not online. Workplaces are already nasty gaggles of worthless social butterflies who suck their employers dry, do no work, and easily gang up and get people fired for doing their jobs. Imagine letting these people get you jailed, and not just fired, because there are now a dozen witnesses that you bullied somebody.

They staged football games and only altered the colour of the uniforms. When wearing black, subjects were more likely to be penalised for the SAME ACTION.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document? ... cf3e2772e3
To determine whether the penalty data reported in Study 2 might stem from the biased judgments of referees, we had subjects watch videotaped segments of a "staged" football game in which the defensive team was wearing either black or white uniforms. Subjects made a series of judgments about the defensive team's actions after each play. Because the actions presented on the videotape were staged by us, they depicted the same events in both the white and black versions. Despite this equivalence, we hypothesized that the association between black uniforms and meanness and aggressiveness would cause subjects to question the legality of the defensive team's actions more when they were wearing black uniforms than when they were wearing white.
...And they found, it did.