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 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.

The level of debate so poor sometimes. Its baffling.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
He-said-she-said situation does not equate passing he-said-she-said laws where one is accused only on the words and accusations of one person.
Nobody is making such argument.
Stop with the straw-man.

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.

We have situations which are difficult to prosecute with sexual harassment or stealing where we may have only he-said-she-said situations but that does not stop us to have laws against stealing, sexual harassment.
That's why people get convicted usually when compelling evidence is found.

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.

I think the situations where we have one bully, one victim and no witnesses, no physical evidence, no footage evidence is rare. Bulling usually also involves repetition of the acts.

The same can be said of other offences. We have situations where someone stole from somebody and there is no witnesses, no physical evidence, no footage evidence; only the accusations from the victim. But that does not stop us from having laws against stealing.

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.

1. Bulling online on social media or verbally at school sometimes does not involve physicality.
Two girls have committed suicide recently in my country after being bullied verbally on whatsup, social media and at school. There is plenty of evidence to go around and punish the guilty.
2.All offences laws lead to situational he-said-she-said. But we have laws against such offences.
QED.

[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.

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.

All I hear is hard sometimes to prove it. He-said-she-said situations where we have only the perpetrator and the victim. Or sometimes people will gang and lie about an offence that did not happen.
This problems happen will other offences: sexual harassment, stealing, murder and so on.
Where we do no have footage evidence, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and its hard to prosecute; where we have only he-said-she-said; where people gang together and lie about some offence and some innocent gets convicted wrongly.
But that does not stop us to not have laws against said offences. QED.

[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.
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!

Anarchism would lead to a much a bigger evil then having laws because humans are prone to behaving rather evil, malevolent, selfish, very prone to vices and overindulgence then in a good, benevolent, wise, altruistic, moderate manner.

[oldbadger]

Anarchism would lead to a much a bigger evil then having laws because humans are prone to behaving rather evil, malevolent, selfish, very prone to vices and overindulgence then in a good, benevolent, wise, altruistic, moderate manner.

Indeed...... some kind of species schizophrenia.
I feel quite sure that if a few thousand anarchists were to be left on their own large island that within a very short time they would have rules and laws!

[Clownboat]

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.

The level of debate so poor sometimes. Its baffling.

When will you realize that your bullying is ineffective on me? I literally don't think about you outside of when I'm replying to your posts. The liar lies and the bully bullies.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
He-said-she-said situation does not equate passing he-said-she-said laws where one is accused only on the words and accusations of one person.
Nobody is making such argument.
Stop with the straw-man.

I left my actual quote at the top of this post. I challenge you to point to an actual strawman argument that I made in it. The liar lies and the bully bullies.
Free speech is important. I like to know who the liars and bullies are around me. It's valuable info IMO.

Is there a reason you quote mind out where it was noted that you are confusing actual existing crimes like assault and theft as bullying? Have you amended your thinking and just don't want anyone to know that you have because it made your argument null and void?

We have situations which are difficult to prosecute with sexual harassment or stealing where we may have only he-said-she-said situations but that does not stop us to have laws against stealing, sexual harassment.

This is a correct statement. Thank you!

That's why people get convicted usually when compelling evidence is found.

This is also true!

I think the situations where we have one bully, one victim and no witnesses, no physical evidence, no footage evidence is rare. Bulling usually also involves repetition of the acts.

Is this to admit that you have tried to bully me in this thread? If I compiled all the insults and negative insinuations, at what point would you accept that you have been a bully? What should be your punishment be for your words if found guilty?

The same can be said of other offences. We have situations where someone stole from somebody and there is no witnesses, no physical evidence, no footage evidence; only the accusations from the victim. But that does not stop us from having laws against stealing.

This is another true statement! We do have laws against stealing and I support them. I also support laws against murder, theft and assault. Trying to criminalize what someone may or may not have said (please try to remember that assault and theft are already crimes) is harder for me to swallow. If someone is a bully, let it be known I say!
Brings to mind: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. I argue that good humans need to stop bullies. Shun them, embarrass them or whatever, but putting them in a cage... that's for criminals, not bullies IMO (bullies that commit crimes do deserve a cage).

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.

1.[/b] Bulling online on social media or verbally at school sometimes does not involve physicality.
Two girls have committed suicide recently in my country after being bullied verbally on whatsup, social media and at school. There is plenty of evidence to go around and punish the guilty.
2.All offences laws lead to situational he-said-she-said. But we have laws against such offences.
QED.

Do you notice how your reply doesn't address what you were quoting (in bold above) in any way shape or form? I think you should just ignore this fact and call me names instead!

[Clownboat]

Anarchism would lead to a much a bigger evil then having laws because humans are prone to behaving rather evil, malevolent, selfish, very prone to vices and overindulgence then in a good, benevolent, wise, altruistic, moderate manner.

Thank you for more examples.

Let's follow this conversation to it's logical conclusion...
- Let's make laws against evil behavior.
- Let's make laws against being malevolent.
- Let's make laws against being selfish.
- Let's make laws against being mean.

Or...
- We have laws already in place that make assault illegal. Calling assault 'bullying' is a mistake. (One you have committed here). If someone has had their head shoved in a toilet, assault has been committed. To call this bullying is to ignore the actual crime. Why ignore the crime that was committed? Why would it be logical to protect a criminal in this instance by ignoring the crime that was committed to instead try to argue that a certain level of bullying has taken place?
- We have laws already in place that make theft illegal. Calling theft 'bullying' is a mistake. (One you have committed here). See above...

Trying to convict someone for a certain level of being mean is like trying to convict someone for being a certain level of selfish. You think you have made an sensical argument when you refer to assault as bullying, because assault is an agreed to crime. All you're doing is mistakenly using words thinking you made a point about bullying (I win and the other person is just a poor debater) when in fact you are making a point about assault or theft. This poor debater with memory issues is left scratching his head.

[Clownboat]

Anarchism would lead to a much a bigger evil then having laws because humans are prone to behaving rather evil, malevolent, selfish, very prone to vices and overindulgence then in a good, benevolent, wise, altruistic, moderate manner.

Indeed...... some kind of species schizophrenia.
I feel quite sure that if a few thousand anarchists were to be left on their own large island that within a very short time they would have rules and laws!

Agreed! Is there a point?
If you are trying to lump some of us in with anarchists, that would only be a weak attempt to poison the well. I for one have been very clear that I support enforcing laws, which is the opposite of anarchy.

[Purple Knight]

All I hear is hard sometimes to prove it. He-said-she-said situations where we have only the perpetrator and the victim. Or sometimes people will gang and lie about an offence that did not happen.
This problems happen will other offences: sexual harassment, stealing, murder and so on.
Where we do no have footage evidence, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and its hard to prosecute; where we have only he-said-she-said; where people gang together and lie about some offence and some innocent gets convicted wrongly.
But that does not stop us to not have laws against said offences. QED.

By that logic, the fact that some laws require positive proof means they all should. Some laws are based on strict definitions, without room for arbitrary judgments, therefore they all should be.

[Purple Knight]

Anarchism would lead to a much a bigger evil then having laws because humans are prone to behaving rather evil, malevolent, selfish, very prone to vices and overindulgence then in a good, benevolent, wise, altruistic, moderate manner.

Indeed...... some kind of species schizophrenia.
I feel quite sure that if a few thousand anarchists were to be left on their own large island that within a very short time they would have rules and laws!

Agreed! Is there a point?
If you are trying to lump some of us in with anarchists, that would only be a weak attempt to poison the well. I for one have been very clear that I support enforcing laws, which is the opposite of anarchy.

If anything, supporting laws that can be arbitrarily enforced, or not enforced, in any given situation, regardless of what anyone actually did, is closer to anarchy.

[oldbadger]

Anarchism would lead to a much a bigger evil then having laws because humans are prone to behaving rather evil, malevolent, selfish, very prone to vices and overindulgence then in a good, benevolent, wise, altruistic, moderate manner.

Indeed...... some kind of species schizophrenia.
I feel quite sure that if a few thousand anarchists were to be left on their own large island that within a very short time they would have rules and laws!

Agreed! Is there a point?
If you are trying to lump some of us in with anarchists, that would only be a weak attempt to poison the well. I for one have been very clear that I support enforcing laws, which is the opposite of anarchy.

Hooray! CB and PK both support the enforcing of laws............ that's that, then.