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?

[boatsnguitars]

Ridicule does not equal bulling.

Post 220: "Bulling includes physical violence, psychological violence, ridicule, stealing."
From this post itself, just below: "So someone bullies someone smaller for weeks, months, years. Ridicules the person...."

If two mates ridicule each other is not bulling.

Then bullying does not include ridicule like you had claimed before.
You make my point again, it is not clear as to when bullying will be taking place. Therefore, we must continue to punish people for agreed to crimes, not for how much bullying someone feels.

The wrongdoing is: Hurting

You mean the act of assault. If we made hurting a crime, where would our young ladies get their ears pierced? I can not agree with your claim as stated.

or frightening

Frightening someone is not a crime either and like bullying, the person doing the frightening might not even know they scared a person. Imagine making it a crime to walk into a room and frightening someone (even by accident?)! Therefore I can not agree with your claim as stated.

other person which is in a less favorable position, on repeated occasions which can last weeks, months, years. Which can lead to serious psychological problems, even suicide.

I urge you to be kind to others to avoid such things.

Bulling by definition says the victim is in a less favorable position and "Hurting or frightening".

Hurting is assault and you can't place fear in another person. The fear that may or may not be felt is internal and the person that did the frightening would have no way to know if the other person will internally have fear. Therefore I feel it would be wrong to punish person A because person B has fear. To clarify, a person can assault another, a person cannot place fear in another. How much fear will be felt will be unknown until too late, like how much bullying a person might be feeling.

Existence of imperfect laws is still a lesser evil then non-existence.

This statement would require a thread of its own. I'm against falsely punishing people myself, your mileage may vary and perhaps that is why you are ok with punishing for the murky act of bullying.

Preaching non-action because we can't create perfect laws or super good laws from the start is not practical and less evil.

Strawman. No one is preaching non-action. I have preached just the opposite here, yet you have seemed to forget already.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

So someone bullies someone smaller for weeks, months, years. Ridicules the person in a less favorable position: laughs because the person is a retard or small or poor. But he does not know deep down it is wrong.
Q: Who can believe such nonsense?
Surely not a rational person.

I find it cowardly for you to continue to quote my words, yet refuse to answer them. I can't make you debate me, so continue with your off point replies to my direct questions. I ask my questions for a reason (to advance the debate) why do you refuse to debate me?

Saying so does not make it so. Being unable to see something does not mean there is nothing there.

Strawman.

You are simply unable.

Ridicule.

So many personal remarks in you latest post.

Do you feel ridiculed? Should we call the authorities if you were to have your way? I ask, because I cannot know the amount of ridicule/bullying you might be feeling, which is my (and PurpleKnights) point you continue to fail to acknowledge and address.

So much for proving a bulling act. So funny.

So you did feel ridiculed? I'm still unclear. If so, I apologize, but my words were still accurate. Should I be placed in a cell or fined if you had your way? It's all very unclear.

Its irrelevant what a person might feel.

Therefore we cannot punish for when a person feels bullied as such feelings are irrelevant. You even agree! Case closed!

Sir bulling may include being shoved with their head in the toilet and stealing of food.

Woops, you just again equated assault and theft with bullying. If assault and theft have taken place, you have my full support that we should continue to punish for such actions. We cannot punish for when a person feels bullied. The person that may be accused of bullying may not even be aware that they are being a bully. You ignore this and instead allude to actual crimes that WE ALREADY PUNISH FOR.

I'm sitting here seeing that you already have what you seem to want. What is it that you want? Is it something you are able to articulate for us?

Clownboat, are you being purposely obtuse? I didn't think bullying was so controversial or unintelligible... then the internet proves me wrong...

[Clownboat]

Again: A bigger concept may include several smaller concepts.

This statement is at times true.
Are you hoping that we continue to consider assault a crime and continue to punish for it, or did you want to discuss bullying?

I ask because I'm trying to separate the two and you refer to assault and theft when we are specifically talking about bullying. Or at least I thought we were talking about bullying.

In our case bulling as a bigger concept includes several smaller concepts: physical assault, stealing, psychological assault, ridicule.
In the process of a person A who hurts or frightens someone B smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do(repeatedly); we can have physical assault coupled with stealing and ridicule or physical assault coupled with ridicule or ridicule coupled with stealing or ridicule with psychological assault and so on.

Analogy:
Torture of people/prisoners as a bigger concept includes several smaller concepts: physical assault, psychological assault, ridicule.
In the process of a person A who intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person B in the custody or under the control of the accused; we can have physical assault coupled with ridicule or physical assault coupled with psychological assault or ridicule with psychological assault and so on.

It has been my argument from the start that figuring out what bullying is and how much bullying a person might be feeling is impossible and therefore not something we can directly punish for. You can feel bullied or not feel bullied (same act, just two different persons), but once a crime has been committed, then the punishment comes.

You might as well be arguing that we can punish if a person simply feels tortured or if they feel like psychological assault took place of if they feel ridiculed. We can't legislate around feelings though. You don't address this and instead pretend that since we have rape and torture laws that having crimes around how someone feels (bullying specifically) will work as well. One doesn't follow from the other though. I think you know this and that is why you will not answer my questions and instead are forced to discuss torture and rape as if they are the same as how a person feels they are being treated.

Mirror: How can we measure the amount of torture(psychological-ridicule) a person is feeling or might feel?

By measuring the amount of torture they endured! Were they waterboarded? How many times if so? I can't believe I had to answer this for you.
Now for the 2nd time: "How can we measure the amount of bullying a person is feeling or might feel?"

If it happened only once is not bulling per definition.
If it matches the definition supplied and the acts were happening repeatedly yes you should be punished.

Got it. So if I shove a person's head in the toilet only once, I have committed assault, but if I do it twice, it is no longer assault, but now bullying? In reality, we would punish for numerous accounts of assault, to now call it bullying would be redundant and totally unnecessary.
You sure you are not equating the two? Sure seems to me that you are arguing to punish for things that we already punish for and nothing you have been saying refutes this. You just seem to want what we call it changed if it happens more than once. That seems silly to me, so hopefully you can clarify. What act are you arguing for us to punish?

Nobody(me) is equating BULLYING with ASSAULT.

Everybody(me) is!

If it is proven I was....

What an odd way to admit that you had/have no idea how much ridicule I might have felt. This is why I cannot support making it a crime if someone else 'feels' bullied.
You argued that we may have video of an assault that took place earlier. Yup, now where is the information obtained about how another is feeling? Calling one person a moron may mean little, but the next person may take their life over it.

I'm certainly not arguing to support bullies, I have made my stance clear on that. I'm just acknowledging the reasons we can and should punish assault compared to why we cannot punish bullies in general, unless they commit a crime in the course of their bullying.

[Clownboat]

Clownboat, are you being purposely obtuse?

Nope

I didn't think bullying was so controversial or unintelligible...

I did, which is why I got involved.

then the internet proves me wrong...

Seems so.

To further illustrate...
Are you able to clarify as to how much bullying person A may feel compared to person B for the same action taken against them both? It's obviously different for each, so how can a potential bully obtain this information ahead of time? Both PurpleKnight and myself seem to find it important that we humans know potential consequences for actions before making them. To punish for how people might feel would make this impossible. This is not me arguing that we should do nothing about bullies. Society should shun bullies and punish them for any crimes committed.

If a person has their head shoved in a toilet, would you consider an assault to have take place and the perpetrator should be punished, or is the person just a bully (not if they do it once according to alexxcJRO, but if they do it more than once which is an odd distinction IMO)?
For me, to acknowledge and punish the assault would be prudent. To ignore the crime of assault to in place call it bullying is unnecessary and only muddies the waters. I'm all ears if I should change my mind on this or if you feel I have confused something.

Thanks for any clarification you have to offer!

[boatsnguitars]

In all honesty, I don't care enough to discuss it. It appears a quick search on the subject would inform u better than a rando on the intertubes (me).
My ability or inabity to explain what I believe it to be is hardly the measure.
To me it seems clear enough, but I suppose we may have different ideas, backgrounds, "truths".

To me, calling school girl fat and ugly everyday but the "cool" kids is criminal. You might think it's good clean fun.

The law may have a different opinion than both of us, and psychologists may have another view.

I'm not sympathetic to jerks and bullies, but that means little, doesn't it?

[alexxcJRO]

By measuring the amount of torture they endured! Were they waterboarded? How many times if so? I can't believe I had to answer this for you.
Now for the 2nd time: "How can we measure the amount of bullying a person is feeling or might feel?"

1.
How disingenuous!

I clearly mentioned: psychological-ridicule. Intentionally.

The person(a prisoner in custody of police, army or CIA) it is never touched but just ridiculed and psychologically tormented.

Please answer:
Q: How can we measure the amount of psychological torment-torture person is feeling or might feel?"

2.
Mirror: "By measuring the amount of bulling they endured! Were they beaten, having things taken? How many times if so? I can't believe I had to answer this for you.
Now for the 2nd time: How can we measure the amount of psychological torment-torture a person is feeling or might feel?"

It has been my argument from the start that figuring out what bullying is and how much bullying a person might be feeling is impossible and therefore not something we can directly punish for. You can feel bullied or not feel bullied (same act, just two different persons), but once a crime has been committed, then the punishment comes.
You might as well be arguing that we can punish if a person simply feels tortured or if they feel like psychological assault took place of if they feel ridiculed. We can't legislate around feelings though. You don't address this and instead pretend that since we have rape and torture laws that having crimes around how someone feels (bullying specifically) will work as well. One doesn't follow from the other though. I think you know this and that is why you will not answer my questions and instead are forced to discuss torture and rape as if they are the same as how a person feels they are being treated.

We are talking of equating bulling with physical assault and stealing here. Please don't bore with other point of debate. They are being discussed elsewhere.
Please address my point.

Got it. So if I shove a person's head in the toilet only once, I have committed assault, but if I do it twice, it is no longer assault, but now bullying? In reality, we would punish for numerous accounts of assault, to now call it bullying would be redundant and totally unnecessary.

Q: Dude what is wrong with you?
I have supplied the definition. I have explained what I meant by bulling.
I talk and supply the definition of X. You talk of Y.

What an odd way to admit that you had/have no idea how much ridicule I might have felt. This is why I cannot support making it a crime if someone else 'feels' bullied.
You argued that we may have video of an assault that took place earlier. Yup, now where is the information obtained about how another is feeling? Calling one person a moron may mean little, but the next person may take their life over it.
I'm certainly not arguing to support bullies, I have made my stance clear on that. I'm just acknowledging the reasons we can and should punish assault compared to why we cannot punish bullies in general, unless they commit a crime in the course of their bullying.

Your post betray the opposite of being hurting and frighten.
You made fun too and ridiculed. You seem to have fun. Often posting laughing emoticons.
The ridicule has been from both side.
Your not in a less favorable position.
I have already explained this.
There is no evidence of bulling. Only ridiculous claims.

[alexxcJRO]

Post 220: "Bulling includes physical violence, psychological violence, ridicule, stealing."
From this post itself, just below: "So someone bullies someone smaller for weeks, months, years. Ridicules the person...."

Then bullying does not include ridicule like you had claimed before.
You make my point again, it is not clear as to when bullying will be taking place. Therefore, we must continue to punish people for agreed to crimes, not for how much bullying someone feels.
Woops, you just again equated assault and theft with bullying. If assault and theft have taken place, you have my full support that we should continue to punish for such actions. We cannot punish for when a person feels bullied. The person that may be accused of bullying may not even be aware that they are being a bully. You ignore this and instead allude to actual crimes that WE ALREADY PUNISH FOR.
I'm sitting here seeing that you already have what you seem to want. What is it that you want? Is it something you are able to articulate for us?

Including does not meant equating. Dear Cthulhu!

Someone X: "Big Mac includes a medium portion of fries, a juice and a double cheeseburger".

Saying Big Mac includes those 3 things does not mean someone X is equating Big Mac with a "medium portion of fries" or with a "double cheeseburger".
Q: Capish?

Frightening someone is not a crime either and like bullying, the person doing the frightening might not even know they scared a person. Imagine making it a crime to walk into a room and frightening someone (even by accident?)! Therefore I can not agree with your claim as stated.

Nobody(me) said bulling is one instance where one is frighten by accident.
Another fail.

I urge you to be kind to others to avoid such things.

Completely ignoring my point with irrelevant remarks.

Hurting is assault and you can't place fear in another person. The fear that may or may not be felt is internal and the person that did the frightening would have no way to know if the other person will internally have fear. Therefore I feel it would be wrong to punish person A because person B has fear. To clarify, a person can assault another, a person cannot place fear in another. How much fear will be felt will be unknown until too late, like how much bullying a person might be feeling.

Hurting can be psychological too like it is present in torture of people/prisoners.

This statement would require a thread of its own. I'm against falsely punishing people myself, your mileage may vary and perhaps that is why you are ok with punishing for the murky act of bullying.

Completely ignoring my point with irrelevant remarks.

Strawman. No one is preaching non-action. I have preached just the opposite here, yet you have seemed to forget already.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Not having laws for bulling is non-action.
Your not saying make better laws. You are saying not have bulling laws at all.

I find it cowardly for you to continue to quote my words, yet refuse to answer them. I can't make you debate me, so continue with your off point replies to my direct questions. I ask my questions for a reason (to advance the debate) why do you refuse to debate me?

Completely ignoring my point with irrelevant remarks.

Do you feel ridiculed? Should we call the authorities if you were to have your way? I ask, because I cannot know the amount of ridicule/bullying you might be feeling, which is my (and PurpleKnights) point you continue to fail to acknowledge and address.
So you did feel ridiculed? I'm still unclear. If so, I apologize, but my words were still accurate. Should I be placed in a cell or fined if you had your way? It's all very unclear.

1. Ridicule its not bulling.
2. Proves its not bulling. So funny.

Therefore we cannot punish for when a person feels bullied as such feelings are irrelevant. You even agree! Case closed!

It about what can be demonstrated though compelling evidence.
It needs to be demonstrated using the legal definition and evidence.
I can claim anything. Someone X stole from me. Someone X murdered my son. Someone X raped my daughter. Empty claims mean nothing.
Q: Don't you not know this?

[Clownboat]

In all honesty, I don't care enough to discuss it.
My ability or inabity to explain what I believe it to be is hardly the measure.
To me it seems clear enough, but I suppose we may have different ideas, backgrounds, "truths".

I'm not sympathetic to jerks and bullies, but that means little, doesn't it?

Your inability to explain it is evidence of my position. The 'measure' as you call it, will vary from person to person and I don't see a fair way to punish people for how others might feel. I assume you don't either, or just don't care enough as you stated.

You being unsympathetic to jerks and bullies does mean little, but imagine if shunning bullies became the social norm for most everyone. Now that would mean something and that is something I argue that good people should be doing.

Thanks for trying to clarify by the way, but alas, measuring the amount of bullying a person might feel us just not something that can be achieved.

[Clownboat]

Please answer:
Q: How can we measure the amount of psychological torment-torture person is feeling or might feel?"

I don't see how we could.

Now for the 2nd time: How can we measure the amount of psychological torment-torture a person is feeling or might feel?"[/i]

I don't see how we can.

Q: Dude what is wrong with you?

Nothing that I'm aware of. Why do you ask?

I have supplied the definition.

Thanks for supplying a definition. Can you now address how a person can know beforehand as to whether another is going to feel enough bullying to justify making bullying (not assault or theft as they are already crimes) a crime?

The ridicule has been from both side.

Bam! At what point would one of us become a bully? The answer is unknowable, even though we have both ridiculed each other. What if I complained enough to the moderators and was able to convince them that I can't handle your ridicule? Is that what would then make you guilty for the crime of bullying? How could you know how I would feel or who I would complain to ahead of time? Is getting some arbitrary party to agree that enough bullying has taken place to justify turning the bullying into a crime all that is actually necessary?

I feel there are now a couple of you that I need to once again remind. If a person, let's call them a bully for your sake, commits any crimes, let's say assault or theft, such a person should be charged for said crimes. If you take issue with this, please, I beg of you, let me know where and why, because I feel you actually agree with me and are just losing your mind that I'm not on board with making bullying (for the reasons I continue to state) itself a crime.

[boatsnguitars]

In all honesty, I don't care enough to discuss it.
My ability or inabity to explain what I believe it to be is hardly the measure.
To me it seems clear enough, but I suppose we may have different ideas, backgrounds, "truths".

I'm not sympathetic to jerks and bullies, but that means little, doesn't it?

Your inability to explain it is evidence of my position. The 'measure' as you call it, will vary from person to person and I don't see a fair way to punish people for how others might feel. I assume you don't either, or just don't care enough as you stated.

You being unsympathetic to jerks and bullies does mean little, but imagine if shunning bullies became the social norm for most everyone. Now that would mean something and that is something I argue that good people should be doing.

Thanks for trying to clarify by the way, but alas, measuring the amount of bullying a person might feel us just not something that can be achieved.

Right. And since a baby can't explain Gravity, it must not exist...

[Clownboat]

Saying Big Mac includes those 3 things does not mean someone X is equating Big Mac with a "medium portion of fries" or with a "double cheeseburger".
Q: Capish?

Neat sandwich story! Now, how can we know ahead of time whether or not a person will feel bullied if let's say, we ridicule them a bit?

Nobody(me) said bulling is one instance where one is frighten by accident.

Of course not, that is my point. No one can actually know when another will feel bullied. Could you imagine being charged for a crime you were unaware of having committed? Care to address this?

Completely ignoring my point with irrelevant remarks.

Oh really! I actually addressed it directly. Be kind and 'your point' is addressed. No need to throw anyone in a cell. That is the point and that is me not ignoring what you typed.
Your slander is therefore misplaced here.

Hurting can be psychological too like it is present in torture of people/prisoners.

Ok.

Completely ignoring my point with irrelevant remarks.

I didn't ignore it and in fact claimed that it would require a thread of its own. I then explained why (that I'm against falsely punishing people).
Therefore, your slander is once again misplaced.

Not having laws for bulling is non-action.

False and you once again ignore why.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
We can in fact not have laws against bullying (because it is so ill defined as to when bullying has occurred), yet still have good people stand up to the evil of bullying.

Your not saying make better laws. You are saying not have bulling laws at all.

Your close. I'm saying we cannot have bullying laws because it is too often unknowable as to when bullying will have taken place. When you alluded to severe cases that you considered bullying (assault and theft), I pointed out that what you alluded to is already a crime and that you have what it seems you want already.

Ridicule its not bulling.

Wait! What? Except when it is, right? Surely you see how muddy the waters are when it comes to discovering if enough behavior has taken place to be able to level the crime of bullying. How do you suggest we get around this?

It about what can be demonstrated though compelling evidence.

And now back to the root of the problem. It is impossible to know the level of a feeling (ridicule for example) that another person is experiencing. As you and I have demonstrated here, ridicule happens. Not knowing when ridicule will become the crime of bullying is what makes punishing for such a thing untenable.

Empty claims mean nothing.
Q: Don't you not know this?

Yes, why do you ask?