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?

[Clownboat]

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

I'm disappointed with your reply, which was a non sequitur by the way.

Do you know why I feel that it would be unfair to punish for 'bullying'? Not assault or theft (or social media harassment which is also a crime by the way), but bullying specifically? Perhaps you can alleviate my concerns and I will then amend my thinking.

Or... I suppose you could just ask if I'm purposefully being obtuse or offer up a non sequitur and we can avoid the possibility of learning from each other, but why do that on a debate site?

[boatsnguitars]

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

I'm disappointed with your reply, which was a non sequitur by the way.

Do you know why I feel that it would be unfair to punish for 'bullying'? Not assault or theft (or social media harassment which is also a crime by the way), but bullying specifically? Perhaps you can alleviate my concerns and I will then amend my thinking.

Or... I suppose you could just ask if I'm purposefully being obtuse or offer up a non sequitur and we can avoid the possibility of learning from each other, but why do that on a debate site?

It's a debate site, sure, but what is the debate (besides "What's wrong with being gay?")?

I'm not sure why it got into a discussion about bullying, but it's not the topic, and it seems easy enough to answer.

It seems to me like it's a boring debate. It's like someone asking to debate "But what is "gay"?! I don't agree with your definition, so let's debate my unique definition about something that doesn't really matter."

Here's my response:
https://www.stopbullying.gov/bullying/w ... %20purpose.

What could possibly be misunderstood about this?

[alexxcJRO]

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?

Deflection, distraction, avoidance.
Sir we were talking of whether I was equating bulling with physical assault or stealing.
I used the analogy with Big Mac to show the errors of your ways.
Please address that and do not bore me with things we discuss elsewhere.

Please show some honest debate form.

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?

I already debuked this.
Ridicule can happen as it was between we two or two mates who make fun of each other and its not bulling.

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.

You were saying someone might not know is bulling someone: "Someone being mean online cannot know what level of ridicule another might feel and will therefore not know if they are guilty of bullying when they do it".
I said: "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."
You said: "I urge you to be kind to others to avoid such things."
And I said: "Completely ignoring my point with irrelevant remarks."
Off course someone knows it is wrong deep down. You did not want to address this: "that deep down we all know when we are doing something evil". Intrinsic morality derived from the process of Affective Empathy.

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.

But you did deflect and ignore my point.

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.

You were strawmaning the whole time the definition in order to make the argument: "because it is so ill defined as to when bullying has occurred".
Giving examples of one time occurrences when I repeatedly said: "It happens multiple times".
The definition clearly betray an intentional intent yet you gave example of accidental things.
You keep repeating the same nonsense like a broken record about equating bulling with other ofences when such thing did not happened.

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.

You have failed to show that. That is debated not a give sir.

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?

No sir. It requires things that are not in the concept of "ridicule".
"Bulling" as a concept is bigger then "ridicule". I made draws for you.
We need other conditions to be meet together with ridicule being present to have bulling.
Ridicule can happen as it was between we two or two mates who make fun of each other and its not bulling.

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.

We have the same problems with torture(psychological) and sexual harassment.
Where we can't know the level of a feeling. Where we have subjectivity of one person.
Yet we have laws. Please do not ignore this point.
That's why we have legal definitions. To make demarcations. This off course is not a perfect system.
Punishing happens based on compelling evidence. Bulling online leaves plenty evidence that a bulling occurred.
Bulling is school again in 2023 where we basically have cameras everywhere is not hard thing to prove considering the malevolence happens on multiple occasions on longer period of times: weeks, months, years. Usually it happens in public(multiple witnesses). We can have physical evidence because it usually involves some form of stealing and physical assault too.

Yes, why do you ask?

Because you said: "Therefore we cannot punish for when a person feels bullied as such feelings are irrelevant. You even agree! Case closed"
Yes we cannot punish based on what a person feels.
We punish based on legal definitions and compelling evidence.

[alexxcJRO]

I don't see how we could.
I don't see how we can.

Yet we have laws for torture.

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

Your debate form is pretty bad.

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?

That q does not make any sense.

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?

Its not unknowable we have a definition.
We have a definition for bulling. boatsnguitars has supplied himself too one which goes along with mine.
What happened between us is not bulling because it does not match the definition and the meanings of the concepts presented.
There is an Imbalance of Power which needs to be present.

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.

Sir I already debunked this. We can have laws for a bigger concept(torture) which include a smaller concept(physical assault) among other things. Because it involves other things beside the smaller concept that are evil and still need to be punished.

[Clownboat]

I'm not sure why it got into a discussion about bullying, but it's not the topic, and it seems easy enough to answer.

You did in post 88: "How long would you let someone bully your child? Would you just let them call them names everyday? Make them feel scared? Make them feel horrible for not being attractive enough, wrong color of skin, disabled? What if your child was gay and your younger self continued to mock and deride that person into adulthood? Then they gained political power and was able to do it from a bully pulpit?

I responded to this point in post 89: I cannot support a quest to eradicate people that display bigotry.

I then claimed that what I was reading from you and alexxcJRO sounded like virtue signaling.

It seems to me like it's a boring debate. It's like someone asking to debate "But what is "gay"?! I don't agree with your definition, so let's debate my unique definition about something that doesn't really matter."

Then you are not paying attention, which is why I asked you this direct question: "Do you know why I feel that it would be unfair to punish for 'bullying'?"
Please notice that this has nothing to do with defining the term. Something you find boring.

Here's my response:
https://www.stopbullying.gov/bullying/w ... %20purpose.

What could possibly be misunderstood about this?

(From your link)
What Is Bullying
Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance.

I cannot support making it a crime for a child to do something unwanted or aggressive as that would land 100% of children in a cell and is obviously ridiculous. Point to an actual crime like cyber bullying, assault or theft and you have my support.

To claim to be against bullying sure sounds nice, but it is still just virtue signaling IMO.

vir·tue sig·nal·ing
noun
the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

[Clownboat]

Deflection, distraction, avoidance.

Agreed! Why are you deflecting, distracting and avoiding answer this question:? "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?"
Be courageous and try to not deflect, distract and/or avoid answering it.

Sir we were talking of whether I was equating bulling with physical assault or stealing.
I used the analogy with Big Mac to show the errors of your ways.
Please address that and do not bore me with things we discuss elsewhere.

Please show some honest debate form.

So when I asked you this question: "I'm sitting here seeing that you already have what you seem to want (that we already punish for crimes). What is it that you want? Is it something you are able to articulate for us?"

Rather then address that you have what you want already, or clarify what it is you really want, you gave me a story about a Big Mac. This failed to show any errors of my ways and certainly didn't address what was asked of you and you have the gall to ask me to be honest. Trying to slay me with irony perhaps?

Ridicule can happen as it was between we two or two mates who make fun of each other and its not bulling.

What is the mechanism that allows us to know beforehand as to whether we will be committing the crime of bullying if we ridicule and make fun of another person?

No sir. It requires things that are not in the concept of "ridicule".
"Bulling" as a concept is bigger then "ridicule". I made draws for you.
We need other conditions to be meet together with ridicule being present to have bulling.
Ridicule can happen as it was between we two or two mates who make fun of each other and its not bulling.

What is the mechanism that allows us to know beforehand as to whether we will be committing the crime of bullying if we ridicule and make fun of another person?

We have the same problems with torture(psychological) and sexual harassment.
Where we can't know the level of a feeling. Where we have subjectivity of one person.
Yet we have laws. Please do not ignore this point.

I do not ignore that we have such laws.
What is the mechanism that allows us to know beforehand as to whether we will be committing the crime of bullying if we ridicule and make fun of another person?

That's why we have legal definitions. To make demarcations. This off course is not a perfect system.

Agreed. What is the mechanism that allows us to know beforehand as to whether we will be committing the crime of bullying if we ridicule and make fun of another person?

Punishing happens based on compelling evidence. Bulling online leaves plenty evidence that a bulling occurred.

Cyberbullying is already a crime. Like I have been arguing from the start, you already have what you want, you just want to call it bullying so you can sound virtuous.

Bulling is school again in 2023 where we basically have cameras everywhere is not hard thing to prove considering the malevolence happens on multiple occasions on longer period of times: weeks, months, years. Usually it happens in public(multiple witnesses). We can have physical evidence because it usually involves some form of stealing and physical assault too.

I wish I could get you to understand that theft and assault are already crimes. It really appears that you just want to call it bullying so you can sound virtuous.

[Clownboat]

Yet we have laws for torture.

That we have laws for torture does not mean we can have laws for bullying. This seems to be your best argument, but it fails. Especially when your bullying examples are already the crimes of assault, theft or cyber bullying.
You already have what you want it seems. "Let's have laws against bullying" sure sounds nice (virtue signaling), until we try to get into the specifics as we have seen here.

Your debate form is pretty bad.

Well, I have only been at it since 2008 on this site alone, so I probably have a long way to go. Or you could look inward where you play games in place of answering direct debate questions. This is the mechanism that has allowed you to believe you are debating when you haven't been.

Its not unknowable we have a definition.
We have a definition for bulling. boatsnguitars has supplied himself too one which goes along with mine.
What happened between us is not bulling because it does not match the definition and the meanings of the concepts presented.

Like I said, what if I complained enough to the moderators (or teachers, or HR) and was able to convince them that I can't handle your ridicule? If I can do this, you would then be guilty and you would have had no idea beforehand, which is the problem. Not that you cannot supply a definition.

There is an Imbalance of Power which needs to be present.

Far too complicated of a thing to prove. For example, how would I go about showing the moderators my 'power level' compared to yours?
Why are you not ok with punishing for the crimes of assault, theft and cyber bullying for example? What more specifically do you want to become criminal?

Sir I already debunked this. We can have laws for a bigger concept(torture) which include a smaller concept(physical assault) among other things. Because it involves other things beside the smaller concept that are evil and still need to be punished.

I claimed that you have what you want already. When a bully assaults, a crime has been committed and said person should be punished. You have in fact not debunked this point. I assume you just want to call these crimes bullying so you can virtue signal.
Since assault, theft and cyber bullying are already crimes. What specifically do you want to become criminal (this would be the bigger concept you allude to) and can it be fairly implemented?

If I were to claim that I wanted to eradicate world hunger, would you see that as virtue signaling? Especially if I cannot articulate how to complete such a thing? (This is kinda like one of you mirror games, so perhaps you will relate)

Now imagine that you asked me how we should go about ending world hunger and I responded with claims like you are a moron or a bad debater in place of responding to your question.
Perhaps I mirrored that we have ended the bubonic plague, so we should be able to end world hunger. Would that be me addressing the 'how would I end world hunger' or would it be me deflecting, distracting and/or avoiding? Asking for a friend...

What would be the greater crime in your opinion? A thief that got away with stealing, or an innocent person gets sent to prison for stealing? Perhaps I should have asked this question a long time ago...

[boatsnguitars]

I'm not sure why it got into a discussion about bullying, but it's not the topic, and it seems easy enough to answer.

You did in post 88: "How long would you let someone bully your child? Would you just let them call them names everyday? Make them feel scared? Make them feel horrible for not being attractive enough, wrong color of skin, disabled? What if your child was gay and your younger self continued to mock and deride that person into adulthood? Then they gained political power and was able to do it from a bully pulpit?

I responded to this point in post 89: I cannot support a quest to eradicate people that display bigotry.

I then claimed that what I was reading from you and alexxcJRO sounded like virtue signaling.

It seems to me like it's a boring debate. It's like someone asking to debate "But what is "gay"?! I don't agree with your definition, so let's debate my unique definition about something that doesn't really matter."

Then you are not paying attention, which is why I asked you this direct question: "Do you know why I feel that it would be unfair to punish for 'bullying'?"
Please notice that this has nothing to do with defining the term. Something you find boring.

Here's my response:
https://www.stopbullying.gov/bullying/w ... %20purpose.

What could possibly be misunderstood about this?

(From your link)
What Is Bullying
Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance.

I cannot support making it a crime for a child to do something unwanted or aggressive as that would land 100% of children in a cell and is obviously ridiculous. Point to an actual crime like cyber bullying, assault or theft and you have my support.

To claim to be against bullying sure sounds nice, but it is still just virtue signaling IMO.

vir·tue sig·nal·ing
noun
the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

You acknowledge cyber bullying, but not bullying?

Anyhow... I'm out. Not interested. I feel I understand it.

[Clownboat]

You acknowledge cyber bullying, but not bullying?

I have argued to punish for crimes from the start and I have addressed the crimes of assault, theft and cyber bullying specifically.

I have noticed virtue signaling because from where I sit, the specific behavior examples mentioned that are desired to be a crime, already are (one user literally didn't seem realize that to shove someone's head into a toilet is to commit the crime of assault). I have asked specifically as to what should become criminal that isn't already. The silence is deafening.

Clownboat thinks that we should end world hunger and cure all diseases though!

[boatsnguitars]

You acknowledge cyber bullying, but not bullying?

I have argued to punish for crimes from the start and I have addressed the crimes of assault, theft and cyber bullying specifically.

I have noticed virtue signaling because from where I sit, the specific behavior examples mentioned that are desired to be a crime, already are (one user literally didn't seem realize that to shove someone's head into a toilet is to commit the crime of assault). I have asked specifically as to what should become criminal that isn't already. The silence is deafening.

Clownboat thinks that we should end world hunger and cure all diseases though!

Would it be a crime to call your daughter in grade school a fat pig every day by her school mates (all under 18 years old), and call her names, make fat noises, or puffy cheeks every time they see her?