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]

One would have to guess.

Q: Sir but how can one say: "Of this I have no doubt." if not omniscient?

No

Q: So why do you whine about things(personal attacks/comments, accusations of doing something) others do you have done yourself?

The only point is to show you behave like an ineffective bully here in this thread (ironic since we are discussing bullies). You can keep pointing that out, but it really isn't necessary from where I sit. I assume the readers have reached an opinion about you by now.

There is no bulling here between us like there is no victim in a fight between 2 persons who both throw punches.
Talking about hypotheticals is irrelevant.

This statement is false, but off topic.

Punishments in a judicial system exist to exert justice where crimes are committed.

Assault is already a crime. We have been over this. I already approve of punishing people that commit assault, or murder or those who cheat on their taxes. What is a punishment that we don't have that you would like enacted is what is being asked over and over of you?

1.
The above has already been debunked by me sir.
We have been over this already.
Torture includes physical assault as a concept. Yet we have laws for torture and physical assault.
Q: Why?
Please answer.

2.
You completely ignored the part with the psychological harm.
Q: Why?

You mentioned the term aggravated bullying. I don't know what that means, so I consulted the internet and did not receive an answer.

Q: Were we not talking about making things(laws) that do not exist?

I don't believe so.

Next time try to be more atentive to what someone is saying.

Where are you getting this definition? I'm not finding it.
This addresses every question in your post plus some extras. Notice how you failed to further the debate. Please ask better questions or start responding to mine like I do yours.

Sir you where moving the goal post, whining about me not trying to make the laws and virtue signaling.
I made an attempt. Now you find more ridiculous things to whine about.
aggravated bulling simply means the most serious forms of bulling. As we have aggravated burglary, aggravated battery, aggravated assault and so on.

[alexxcJRO]

I have noticed that you have acted like an ineffective bully towards me here in this thread. I don't believe you are guilty of any laws on the books now or any laws that you want, but refuse to share with the rest of us.

For me, pointing to your behavior is all that is required to illustrate my point here. I'm not trying to win a debate about who is the bigger bully here. If I was, then I would attempt to debunk the accusation like you are fixated on doing. Perhaps, "If the shoe fits" is relevant here?

I agree, but surely you see that your proposed ideas have nothing to do with inhibiting bullies (dishonest tactics or liars sure, but not bullying). Everything you typed was just an attempt to defend against the behavior you have displayed here in this thread. It seems as though the shoe does fit, but don't worry, from what I have gathered from you, an ineffective bully is not guilty of bullying, only an effective bully is guilty of bullying and apparently knowing ahead of time or not knowing ahead of time if a person will be guilty is not worth hashing out. I get it, hashing such things out is much more difficult then calling your opponent names.

1.
There was no attempt to bully you. So therefore there is no ineffective bully .
You started with the personal attacks, personal comments, personal acussations.
I reacted with some mirroring and then you accused me of bulling.
C: There is no bulling. Not even attempting to bully.
I am a very confident guy, arogant guy and sometimes that comes out as different things.
You behaved in a very doshonest way: ignorning repeatedly my points, changing like the weather and pretending that did not happened, ignoring when I amended my arguments. I usually don't tolerate such behaviour and am very harsh.
2.
You started with name calling, throwing punches. Then we I do the same you whine: slander, bulling, personal attacks.
Q: Do you feel proud of yourself?

I think I'm starting to see your point. We should not make additional laws against bullying because trying to decide when someone is or isn't a bully is extremely difficult. I agree with you that we should continue to punish for crimes though.

If you have any additional bullying laws you would like to share with the class, by all means, lay them out and we can discuss them or compare them to my ideas that I have already presented.

I have already presented something. No need to pretend like that did not happen.

What you fail to answer is when I ask how a person might no ahead of time as to whether their actions are being done to someone weaker or afraid. Specifically, how did you know I was stronger and not afraid of you when you began the name calling?

1.
Q: Who began the name calling? Me? Not you ?

This is rich. You started the fire then whined and pretended like the other one started.
The level of dishonesty is off the charts.
2.
Bulling means sensing when a person is weaker and trying to aggressively dominate or intimidate. The bully knows this. They choose their victims intentionally because they perceive them weaker physically and/or mentally and/or socially.
Also the action is repeated over several days, weeks, years and the other person is not reactive-"throwing punches back", just takes it. The other person is in a less favorable position: weaker physically and/or mentally and/or socially.

You didn't and that's a problem. One that will put innocent people in cages if we simply make bullying a crime. Since we can't make bullying itself a crime (as we are likely both guilty of that here in this thread) I'm trying to determine what specific action(s) you would like to be made criminal.

I already provided a definition of the ofense repeatedly.
Now you ask: "I'm trying to determine what specific action(s) you would like to be made criminal."

If you recall, your initial specifics mentioned were shoving someone's head in a toilet, stealing from them and hanging them from hooks.
Such things are already crimes and I have been asking you since that point as to what you would like to see become criminal. You have supplied nothing to discuss that you would like to see become a crime that might inhibit bullying, so I accuse you of being here to virtue signal. Something I am very willing to retract by the way.

1.
The above has already been debunked by me sir.
We have been over this already.
Torture includes physical assault as a concept. Yet we have laws for torture and physical assault.
Q: Why?
Please answer.

2.
You completely ignored the part with the psychological harm.
Q: Why?

Shunning debate tactics or calling people names would have zero effect of bullying. Try to stay on topic.

So when you accuse me of a bad thing is ok: that is good men and women do something. But when I accuse you of something of bad things is not ok: that is not good men and women do something.
I advise a second look in the mirror.

[Clownboat]

Q: Sir but how can one say: "Of this I have no doubt." if not omniscient?

You are not as rude in real life as you are here. Feel free to argue otherwise.

Q: So why do you whine about things(personal attacks/comments, accusations of doing something) others do you have done yourself?

I apologize if you think I'm whining as that is not my intention. I'm pointing out your name calling and insults for the on topic irony because you and I are discussing bullies. Name calling and insults is what bullies do, as well as other actions. Feel free to argue that bullies don't call people names nor level insults.

The only point is to show you behave like an ineffective bully here in this thread (ironic since we are discussing bullies). You can keep pointing that out, but it really isn't necessary from where I sit. I assume the readers have reached an opinion about you by now.

Just leaving this quote of mine here to show that it doesn't seem like you are reading my posts very well. I'll can continue to address your whining charge, but it would be good of you to acknowledge that I'm pointing to certain behaviors, not whining about how you are treating me. Again, I don't think about you outside of when I'm forming my replies.

There is no bulling here between us like there is no victim in a fight between 2 persons who both throw punches.

You really don't need to defending that you are acting like a bully here. You can acknowledge that you commit the same acts that a bullies does though and see if you would like to modify your behavior. That's up to you.

Punishments in a judicial system exist to exert justice where crimes are committed.

Actually it's for prevention and deterrence, but this has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Torture includes physical assault as a concept. Yet we have laws for torture and physical assault.
Q: Why?
Please answer.

For prevention and deterrence. Please acknowledge that you have read my reply.

You completely ignored the part with the psychological harm.
Q: Why?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Please rephrase your question about psychological harm so I can address it.

Q: Were we not talking about making things(laws) that do not exist?

That is what I have been trying to discuss. See odd sock day and t-shirt day. You mostly seem to be trying to defend your behavior that I note bullies also participate in.

Sir you where moving the goal post

I'm tired of you making this charge. Either retract this statement or provide evidence for it.

whining about me not trying to make the laws and virtue signaling.

I have noted that you seem to be here to virtue signal and not to discuss what we can do to inhibit bullying. Feel free to show that what I note is not accurate if you can.

I made an attempt. Now you find more ridiculous things to whine about.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

aggravated bulling simply means the most serious forms of bulling. As we have aggravated burglary, aggravated battery, aggravated assault and so on.

Thank you for defining what you meant by the term, because as I said, I checked online and could not find a definition.
Is this to say that you are ok with bullying, as long as it doesn't fall within your supplied aggravated bullying?

[Clownboat]

Q: Do you feel proud of yourself?

Most days yes.

I have already presented something. No need to pretend like that did not happen.

Something like odd sock day or t-shirt day? What do you present that we do to inhibit bullying?

Q: Who began the name calling? Me? Not you ?

This is of no actual interest to me, but you will continue to claim that I'm whining about it.

This is rich. You started the fire then whined and pretended like the other one started.
The level of dishonesty is off the charts.

Copy/paste to my dishonesty or kindly retract this charge please.

Bulling means sensing when a person is weaker and trying to aggressively dominate or intimidate. The bully knows this. They choose their victims intentionally because they perceive them weaker physically and/or mentally and/or socially.
Also the action is repeated over several days, weeks, years and the other person is not reactive-"throwing punches back", just takes it. The other person is in a less favorable position: weaker physically and/or mentally and/or socially.

You can stop telling me what you think a bully is and start discussing what we can do to prevent bullies any time you would like. Things like odd sock day or t-shirt day or some law that we don't have, but you would like for us to have.

I already provided a definition of the ofense repeatedly.
Now you ask: "I'm trying to determine what specific action(s) you would like to be made criminal."

Thank you for acknowledging this. Please kindly answer the question as to what you would like to be made criminal. The best I can tell is that you want really bad bullying to be a crime, but not sorta bad bullying. Am I close? If so, I might have some questions that will bring us back to PurpleKnights objection.

Torture includes physical assault as a concept. Yet we have laws for torture and physical assault.
Q: Why?
Please answer.

For prevention and deterrence. Please acknowledge that you have read my reply.

You completely ignored the part with the psychological harm.
Q: Why?

I'm being very diligent about answering the questions you have posed to me in every single response. Please form your point into a question that I will be able to respond to.

So when you accuse me of a bad thing is ok: that is good men and women do something. But when I accuse you of something of bad things is not ok: that is not good men and women do something.

Are you able to be specific about what it is that I have said that you find bad? I have been very specific about your bad actions (name calling, insults about how one debates and their memory) and have noticed that I observe bullies committing the same behavior. Some do it so much to a victim that the victim ends up killing themselves.

[alexxcJRO]

You are not as rude in real life as you are here. Feel free to argue otherwise.

Trying to shift the burden of proof after realising you can't be certain of claimed thing. Comedy continues.

I apologize if you think I'm whining as that is not my intention. I'm pointing out your name calling and insults for the on topic irony because you and I are discussing bullies. Name calling and insults is what bullies do, as well as other actions. Feel free to argue that bullies don't call people names nor level insults.
I'm pointing to certain behaviors, not whining about how you are treating me. Again, I don't think about you outside of when I'm forming my replies.
You really don't need to defending that you are acting like a bully here. You can acknowledge that you commit the same acts that a bullies does though and see if you would like to modify your behavior. That's up to you.

You started it. Personal attack and personal comments. Whined several times: slander.
Q: Why complain or point out things in others you have done yourself?
Q: Do you not feel any amount of hypocrisy?
Although bullies namecall and insult and ridicule it does not follow all name calling and insult and ridicule is bulling. There is no equivalence. I have already debunk this multiple times.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Please rephrase your question about psychological harm so I can address it.

I said: "I clearly mentioned the cases by examples: serious bodily and psychological harm: victim hospitalization because of physical injuries/victims undergoes serious psychological treatment(PTSD and so on), victim commits suicide."
You said: "Assault is already a crime."
I said: "You completely ignored the part with the psychological harm.
Q: Why?"

That is what I have been trying to discuss. See odd sock day and t-shirt day. You mostly seem to be trying to defend your behavior that I note bullies also participate in.

Irrelevant comment to this point of discussion.

I'm tired of you making this charge. Either retract this statement or provide evidence for it.

We were debating whether laws for bulling to exist or not.
I was on the side in favor of existence. You were on the side of non-existence.
The goal was for me to demonstrate in favor of the goal: existence of laws for bulling and debunk your objections.
You then move the goal post: making the laws. I no longer needed to argue for goal: existence of bulling laws but a new further goal: making the laws.

I have noted that you seem to be here to virtue signal and not to discuss what we can do to inhibit bullying. Feel free to show that what I note is not accurate if you can.

Pretending like we did not discuss ad nauseam about whether laws for bulling should exist or not.
Pretending I did not make an attempt for your new goal post.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

You said you did not whined or complained.
When you make an accusation, a personal remark its ok. But when I do it I am a "loser".
When you make a personal comment, name calling its ok. But when I do it its bulling and its bad.
The joke continues.

Thank you for defining what you meant by the term, because as I said, I checked online and could not find a definition.
Is this to say that you are ok with bullying, as long as it doesn't fall within your supplied aggravated bullying?

Q: When I said such a thing?
You understand nothing.
Q: Why is it so hard to understand?

[alexxcJRO]

Something like odd sock day or t-shirt day? What do you present that we do to inhibit bullying?

You moved the goal post about me making the law.
I did made an attempt.
Q: What's up with those questions sir?

This is of no actual interest to me, but you will continue to claim that I'm whining about it.

Answer please:
Q: Who started the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations? Me or you?

Copy/paste to my dishonesty or kindly retract this charge please.

You started with the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations then complained when I did the same. Like I was not allowed but you were.

You can stop telling me what you think a bully is and start discussing what we can do to prevent bullies any time you would like. Things like odd sock day or t-shirt day or some law that we don't have, but you would like for us to have.

Now that I answered your question you completely ignore that and again you ask the same q to all points of discussion.
Q: Why do you do this? Ask the same q to all points of discussion and ignored the points made?
Sir I did made the law. I gave the definition of the offense. Listed the punishments according to the age.

Thank you for acknowledging this. Please kindly answer the question as to what you would like to be made criminal. The best I can tell is that you want really bad bullying to be a crime, but not sorta bad bullying. Am I close? If so, I might have some questions that will bring us back to PurpleKnights objection.

Sir I did made the law. I gave the definition of the offense. Listed the punishments according to the age.

For prevention and deterrence. Please acknowledge that you have read my reply.

Q: So why can't we have laws both for bulling and physical assault when we have for torture which may include physical assault among multiple things the same bulling may include physical assault among multiple things?

I'm being very diligent about answering the questions you have posed to me in every single response. Please form your point into a question that I will be able to respond to.

I said: "I clearly mentioned the cases by examples: serious bodily and psychological harm: victim hospitalization because of physical injuries/victims undergoes serious psychological treatment(PTSD and so on), victim commits suicide."
You said: "Assault is already a crime."
I said: "You completely ignored the part with the psychological harm.
Q: Why?"

Are you able to be specific about what it is that I have said that you find bad? I have been very specific about your bad actions (name calling, insults about how one debates and their memory) and have noticed that I observe bullies committing the same behavior. Some do it so much to a victim that the victim ends up killing themselves.

You name called and made personal remarks.
I did the same.
You accused me of something: virtue signaling and bulling.
I did the same: I accused you of something: dishonest debate form/tactics.
When you do it its ok when I do it its not ok.
Q: Why the contradiction?

[Clownboat]

Q: Why complain or point out things in others you have done yourself?

It's a great example of how handling bullies is not as black and white as it needs to be in order to make bullying itself a crime. I fear that people would abuse such a thing and that innocent people would be put in cages. I seek to avoid jailing innocent people and I also seek to discuss what we can do to inhibit bullying.

You want to argue about how you and I exchange words and seek to defend your right to call me a moron in debate, that has memory issues and an odd way of debating.

Q: Do you not feel any amount of hypocrisy?

No. This is debate. Disagreement is expected. Calling people names is not.

Although bullies name call and insult and ridicule...

That is what i have been claiming. (Not the part I removed as I am not making a claim about that).

I have noted many times now that bullies name call and insult. Trying to determine that enough of it has happened, or enough happened to a weak enough person is what makes bullying becoming a crime a very difficult thing to do. I believe I have illustrated that here in this debate. You just accuse me of whining and claiming in place of realizing I'm illustrating my point.

I said: "You completely ignored the part with the psychological harm.
Q: Why?"

Oh, now I think I see. Sorry, but that can also be a crime already, like assault is.

Blackmail, coercion or intimidation are forms of psychological harm and these can be crimes. Psychological harm can also include name calling and harassment.
https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article ... 20damaging.

I'm tired of you making this charge. Either retract this statement or provide evidence for it.

We were debating whether laws for bulling to exist or not.
I was on the side in favor of existence. You were on the side of non-existence.
The goal was for me to demonstrate in favor of the goal: existence of laws for bulling and debunk your objections.
You then move the goal post: making the laws. I no longer needed to argue for goal: existence of bulling laws but a new further goal: making the laws.

Sorry, but I'm still on the side that making bullying a crime seems difficult to do. Assault and theft should remain crimes. Your failure to provide examples for the laws that would make your goal possible is evidence that my position, the one I have had from the start is accurate. The posts have remained in place.

Pretending like we did not discuss ad nauseam about whether laws for bulling should exist or not.

This was addressed by my example of where I want laws in place that will end world hunger. Aren't I a great person? Whatever you do, don't ask me what I had in mind!

You said you did not whined or complained.
When you make an accusation, a personal remark its ok. But when I do it I am a "loser".
When you make a personal comment, name calling its ok. But when I do it its bulling and its bad.
The joke continues.

It's hard to know when someone is or isn't a bully at times, isn't it? Do you see that as a problem if someone is trying to argue for making bullying a crime? Should this fact be ignored or discussed? I am trying to discuss it, you are trying to justify your behavior in this thread and there is no need for you to do so. I point to your behavior in order to illustrate my point, not because you need to defend your ability to call people morons in debate.

I think you have taken your behavior in this thread too personally and therefore seek to justify it. There is no need IMO, I don't believe that the name calling and insults here between us should be a crime. I don't think you do either, yet that is all you seem willing to discuss.

[Clownboat]

Something like odd sock day or t-shirt day? What do you present that we do to inhibit bullying?

Q: What's up with those questions sir?

I care about things society can do to inhibit bullying. That is why I presented both of those things to see if you actually cared about inhibiting bullying. I presented options we could discuss on a silver platter to you, but you care more about discussing your name calling and my whining (your words) sadly. Neither of which have anything to do with bullying besides for evidencing that making bullying itself a crime seems like a difficult thing to do.

Answer please:
Q: Who started the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations? Me or you?

It doesn't matter beyond how it illustrates that making bullying itself a crime seems very difficult. Pretend I called you names first for all it matters.

Copy/paste to my dishonesty or kindly retract this charge please.

You started with the name calling and the personal remarks and personal accusations then complained when I did the same. Like I was not allowed but you were.

I see you were unable to copy/paste to show you spoke the truth. Again, it matters not other than to illustrate my point that making bullying itself a crime would be very difficult.

Q: So why can't we have laws both for bulling and physical assault when we have for torture which may include physical assault among multiple things the same bulling may include physical assault among multiple things?

I never said we couldn't. I continue to suggest why it would be hard, but not that we can't. I would love for you to list a behavior that currently isn't a crime, but should be. Then we could discuss that and compare the possible effect to those of odd sock day for example. You seem more concerned with who called who a name first though sadly.

You name called and made personal remarks.

What names did I call you? Perhaps I owe you an apology?

I did the same.

We all know this. I asked you at what point would this become the crime of bullying, which you are unable to provide an answer to which provides evidence to my current possition that making bullying itself a crime would be a very difficult thing to do.

You accused me of something: virtue signaling and bulling.

You do seem to be virtue signaling and you have committed the very same behavior that a bully does, yet it isn't always a crime which further illustrates my point that making bullying itself a crime would be very difficult.

I did the same: I accused you of something: dishonest debate form/tactics.
When you do it its ok when I do it its not ok.

You got so close! The question is at what point would any of our actions become the crime of bullying and how could we know ahead of time that we are about to commit said crime?
I know, I know.... it's very difficult to answer, which again evidences my position.

You need to realize that just because making bullying a crime seems difficult, we can still discuss it to see if the obstacles can be overcome. Perhaps they can and I'm not seeing it yet?

[oldbadger]

Q: Why complain or point out things in others you have done yourself?

It's a great example of how handling bullies is not as black and white as it needs to be in order to make bullying itself a crime. I fear that people would abuse such a thing and that innocent people would be put in cages. I seek to avoid jailing innocent people and I also seek to discuss what we can do to inhibit bullying. ..............

The legislators who write laws are very specialised in writing as much clarity as possible. You don't have to worry about such responsibilities, yourself.
The people who make judgements upon defendants are also highly trained, and others sit above them for the purposes of judging appeals.

I don't expect that we will be undertaking either roles........definitely!

[LittleNipper]

Let's consider what bullying is in general.
Bullying can be:

Physical
hitting
pushing and shoving
fighting
tripping
yelling at someone
making rude gestures
taking or breaking another person’s things

Emotional
name calling
making fun of someone
laughing at someone
leaving someone out on purpose
starting rumors or telling lies about someone
sending mean messages on a computer or cell phone
trying to make someone feel bad about who they are

That said, bullying has nothing to do with disagreeing, nor is expressing that some behavior isn't regarded as equally appropriate bullying.