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]

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.

More empty claims.
Your supposed clever try to make look like I bulled you in order to prove your point you won't work.
Words have meaning though:
"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:"

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?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.
The straw man is saying I am promoting passing "he-said-she-said" when said I wanted laws against bulling.

Bulling is "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:".

Bulling involves repeated physical assault, physical violence and/or verbal violence written or spoken.

Rape involves physical assault, physical violence yet we have laws for rape. Nobody is mistaking rape for physical assault.

Rational people have brains and use them.

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?

Words have meaning though.
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:"

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).

People are put in a cage for much less evil behaviour then bulling. Bulling which in enough cases causes mass shootings, suicides.
There is no reason bulling should not be punished.
All your objections are laughable.

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!

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.

Sir we have been over this already. Moving in circles like headless chickens.
Forgot all the mirror events where I already debunked your nonsense about what is perceived and not. The whole sexual offence analogy.
Might want to read again.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

LOL.
The comedy continues.

I never called theft or physical assault as bulling. I have on several occasions put up a definition.


Rape involves physical assault, physical violence and/or other stuff yet we have laws for rape . Nobody is mistaking rape for physical assault.
Torture of prisoners or of people to obtain conffesions/information involves physical assault, physical violence and/or other stuff yet we have laws for torture of prisoners or of people to obtain confessions/information.

The same bulling involves physical assault, physical violence and/or other stuff. Nobody is mistaking bulling for physical assault.
Bulling encompasses more then physical assault like rape or torturing of prisoners or of people to obtain confessions/information does.

QED.

Enjoy!

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Yes all prosecutions and convictions should happen based on compelling evidence.
I don't understand what is your problem.
This all exchange has been ridiculous.

[Clownboat]

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

Hooray! Oldbadger agrees that the sky appears blue.......... that's that, then.

[Clownboat]

More empty claims.
Your supposed clever try to make look like I bulled you in order to prove your point you won't work.
Words have meaning though:
"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:"

Perhaps now you understand as to why your attempt to bully me were ineffective?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.

Your bullying attempts will remain ineffective on me.

The straw man is saying I am promoting passing "he-said-she-said" when said I wanted laws against bulling.

I challenged you to show where I did such. You failed.
Copy/paste to save time and to show the readers the words, that you admit have meaning that I used: "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."

Bulling is "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:".

Bulling involves repeated physical assault, physical violence and/or verbal violence written or spoken.

Then you argue with yourself. Just above you claim that bullying is behavior that hurts or frightens. Now bullying is assault again. All this coming from a person that claims words have meaning!

Rape involves physical assault, physical violence yet we have laws for rape. Nobody is mistaking rape for physical assault.

Correct, but you have been mistaking assault and theft as bullying. That is not rational.

Rational people have brains and use them.

Oh dear!

There is no reason bulling should not be punished.

Reasons have been supplied. You just keep confusing bullying with assault and theft and I keep pointing out that these things are already crimes. You error in wanting to call that bullying, so in your mind you envision such actions as not being punishable, when they are. I would correct your thinking if I could, but that will have to be internal on your part.

All your objections are laughable.

When the debate is lost....

Sir we have been over this already. Moving in circles like headless chickens.
Forgot all the mirror events where I already debunked your nonsense about what is perceived and not. The whole sexual offence analogy.
Might want to read again.

Another response that doesn't address what was asked. What a shame!
What was asked was: "Do you notice how your reply doesn't address what you were quoting (in bold above) in any way shape or form? 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."

Once you address how you have mistaken bullying with assault and theft, you know, crimes we ALREADY punish people for, then you could claim that we are going in circles. Until then, you pretend that we are going in circles in place of acknowledging that assault and theft are already crimes.

[Clownboat]

I never called theft or physical assault as bulling.

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

You did, but I'm the one with memory issues as you insinuated.

Nobody is mistaking bulling for physical assault.

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

Bulling encompasses more then physical assault...

Once again, you allude to physical assault being encompassed in bullying.
If assault is committed, a crime has been committed. That doesn't seem to be enough for you though. You want to call this assault 'bullying' and then you pretend that we don't punish such a crime when we do. Then you argue about how we should punish bullying, when the 2 specific scenarios you brought up and called bullying are already the crimes of assault and theft.

You can either amend your thinking, or remain immune by pretending I'm some moron.

[Purple Knight]

Yes all prosecutions and convictions should happen based on compelling evidence.
I don't understand what is your problem.
This all exchange has been ridiculous.

The fact that bullying can't be based on compelling evidence, because it's up to interpretation whether any given thing counts as bullying or not. That's my problem. As long as people have an idea of what they'll be punished for beforehand, and can make informed choices about their behaviour to avoid punishment, I don't have a single problem with any laws you want to make.

[oldbadger]

Correct, but you have been mistaking assault and theft as bullying. That is not rational.

Any kind of assault is a severe form of bullying.
Isn't that obvious to you?

[alexxcJRO]

You did, but I'm the one with memory issues as you insinuated.

Nonsense. Nobody is equating physical assault with bulling.

Only desperate debaters who don't any food for their arguments.

I clearly said bulling involved many things among others: physical assault.
Its like this:
Statement A: Torturing of people by the CIA involved physical assault, psychological torture and so on.
Statement A does not mean: equating torturing of people with physical assault.
Torturing of people is a different concept.
A bigger concept which encapsulate many other concepts among others: physical assault.

Once again, you allude to physical assault being encompassed in bullying.
If assault is committed, a crime has been committed. That doesn't seem to be enough for you though. You want to call this assault 'bullying' and then you pretend that we don't punish such a crime when we do. Then you argue about how we should punish bullying, when the 2 specific scenarios you brought up and called bullying are already the crimes of assault and theft.

You can either amend your thinking, or remain immune by pretending I'm some moron.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.
Torture of prisoners or of people to obtain confessions/information involves physical assault, physical violence and/or other stuff yet we have laws for torture of prisoners or of people to obtain confessions/information.
Sir bulling in schools is not punished as of today in my country. This includes physical assault. Nor was punished when I was in middle-school or high school.

[alexxcJRO]

Perhaps now you understand as to why your attempt to bully me were ineffective?
Your bullying attempts will remain ineffective on me.

Dear sir mirroring events or general statements about humans or personal remarks (pointing to the dishonest tactics) or personal remarks in a debate which can get heated is not bulling conform the definition.

Bulling includes physical violence, psychological violence, ridicule, stealing. Behaviour of a person who being in a more powerful, favorable position hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful for their pleasure and/or to obtain some material benefits(stealing food, assert dominance in a group).

I challenged you to show where I did such. You failed.
Copy/paste to save time and to show the readers the words, that you admit have meaning that I used: "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."

Clownboat : " It doesn't get more he-said-she-said than that and you are in fact arguing to pass bullying laws."

Then you argue with yourself. Just above you claim that bullying is behavior that hurts or frightens. Now bullying is assault again. All this coming from a person that claims words have meaning!
Correct, but you have been mistaking assault and theft as bullying. That is not rational.
Reasons have been supplied. You just keep confusing bullying with assault and theft and I keep pointing out that these things are already crimes. You error in wanting to call that bullying, so in your mind you envision such actions as not being punishable, when they are. I would correct your thinking if I could, but that will have to be internal on your part.
What was asked was: "Do you notice how your reply doesn't address what you were quoting (in bold above) in any way shape or form? 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.
Once you address how you have mistaken bullying with assault and theft, you know, crimes we ALREADY punish people for, then you could claim that we are going in circles. Until then, you pretend that we are going in circles in place of acknowledging that assault and theft are already crimes.

The concept bulling encompasses physical assault, psychological assault, ridicule, stealing and so on. Which can happen physically in the real world or online.
Let me draw for you:

Nobody is equating bulling with physical assault. Stop with the desperate straw-man. It reeks.
Passing laws for bulling is like passing laws for torturing of the people. Both offences can include physical assault. QED.

When the debate is lost...

Q: Really?
Your first reply to me included a personal comment.
Start a fire and then whine that other people do the same. Typical.

Another response that doesn't address what was asked. What a shame!
What was asked was: "Do you notice how your reply doesn't address what you were quoting (in bold above) in any way shape or form? 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.

Pretending like we did not talked of:
"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."