Same sex attraction. Should it be stopped? - Page 34

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Where were you and your ethical highness when people call homosexuals perverts & sexual deviants & medically abnormal people? Would it be acceptable for me to call anyone here perverted, deviant or abnormal? Would I not be expected to prove it rationally and scientifically that you do suffer a perversion, deviant or abnormal? Without that I am nothing but a liar and slanderer?

Why is it that such name calling explicit or implicit is perfectly acceptable? A practice known in most societies as bullying and hate speech perfectly acceptable to you all?

But then all of a sudden when someone points out that repeatedly presenting the research of a total bull organization as scientific backing is dumb - then its all of a sudden against the rules?

You were a mod...u know the IF COC better than anyone else...calling names directly to members is not acceptable...I don't know if that has changed...calling a section of people as weird or perverted is somebody's OPINION...its different from calling a member a name directly...Regarding my stand on calling the gays as weird/perverted...you can go and read in the previous pages...I am totally against it...I have said that they are normal/nice people...I am not going to go over the same thing again and again...I had expressed my opinion and I am out of the debate...my only concern as a member is that name calling is becoming too common on this forum and nothing is being done about it...as a result people like me who have no interest in calling others names...have to resort to the same at times when provoked and I absolutely hate that...I have raised this point just as a member who is concerned of this becoming a trend...this has nothing to do with this debate...I hope u understand that

You don't like homosexuality? Fine!
You are uncomfortable with it? Fine!
You wish to have a society free of it? Fine!

There is a lot of personal reservations and apprehensions against homosexuality that is perfectly fine and acceptable as it is done within reasonable means, and you acknowledge your personal perception. However, presenting these perceptions as facts, especially as facts that demean the dignity of another human being is totally unacceptable. If people actually had an iota of conscience and an actual desire to play by the rules, and do the right thing - they would call out someone when they did the wrong thing irrespective of what side they are on. But clearly despicable attitude towards homosexuals is perfectly acceptable, but despicable attitudes towards homophobia is wrong!...I agree with you and like I said my comment was a general one and has nothing to do with this debate...

Yes, while its not outright calling someone dumb, questioning if someone is dumb is wrong as well. There are many ways to present a counter argument, disproving the facts and not attacking the person. That needs to be addressed. However, if there is addressing - I would expect both sides to be addressed and not just one. ...Thanks you...I know you r impartial...and u proved it..

I've got a lot more on my mind against a member which I do very hard not to say as it would all be blatant COC violations, despite it being factual. But, I don't believe I am breaking any rules in this post, I'm taking a stand and I am 100% willing to take the flak for it if it is unpalatable to people. I know I'm taking a risk with this bluntness, and I'm ready to receive any corrective action if people actually feel this crosses lines...I don't think u broke any rules...but thats for the mod to decide..😆

Originally posted by: zorrro

Rules? What rules? Name calling is natural therefore permissible. Repressing the urge to name calling would be denial of self expression Why not check what the AMA has to say to that.  

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

 

DLR asked "Are you dumb?" not "You are dumb". They are not one and the same thing. You could argue that it was a rhetoric question on his part, but the fact remains that she did not explicitly imply that Believe was "dumb" or anything of that sort.

 

Yes may be right...but will u be offended..if someone asked u that?

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

 

Can you quote a post that implied it explicitly that "natural = good/permissible"? It is, in fact, the opposite that had been argued, and it was only then that, that argument had to be refuted.

implied does not have to be explicit. implied can be implicit and yes it has  repeatedly been argued here that attraction to same sex is natural therefore should be accepted, permissible legal and other words to that effect. cant go through all those pages to hunt a particular word now can I

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

DLR asked "Are you dumb?" not "You are dumb". They are not one and the same thing. You could argue that it was a rhetoric question on his part, but the fact remains that she did not explicitly imply that Believe was "dumb" or anything of that sort.

Originally posted by: zorrro

Implication is sufficient to convey what is meant. It does not have to be that explicit 😆

we are becoming too technical on IF...BTW implication and explicit don't go together...if its explicit...why would it be implied?😆

Originally posted by: zorrro

implied does not have to be explicit. implied can be implicit and yes it has  repeatedly been argued here that attraction to same sex is natural therefore should be accepted, permissible legal and other words to that effect. cant go through all those pages to hunt a particular word now can I

Edited by PhoeniXof_Hades - 12 years ago

Originally posted by: zorrro

Implication is sufficient to convey what is meant. It does not have to be that explicit

 

By that logic, double actions should be taken against those members who have repeatedly called homosexuals "deviants", "perverts", "criminals", "immoral(s)", "sinners" and whatnot, especially considering that most of those names were called explicitly too. But I guess, the former one is okay. The latter one...no. Agagin

Originally posted by: blue-ice

-  There was no direct name calling. If so one ought to report.
-  In my opinion it was not a serious breach of COC, but something that can be sorted off in smoother way.
- In my opinion I think you tend to take these things more seriously, for me its more roll it off the shoulder.
-  If you were genuinely concerned about what people say, you would have called out people not to do so when they make statements like that.
-  Everyone knows in most social and legal situations, disparaging comments against race, gender, religion, sexual orientation are way more serious that a rhetorical question to a generic person. Because these comments foster "hate crime" and "hateful society". In this case it was especially wrong because there was an attempt to pass of these disparaging comments as "scientifically backed" facts.

I would only hope that people would take a stand and call out people when they make disparaging comments that constitutes hate speech, than call out a minor breach. But in the end its your choice what you feel you ought to call out, its completely your choice what ethical stance you choose to take. I personally am more concerned about DM becoming a place that fosters discrimination and looking down on groups,  and less concerned about the fact that people loose their cool or show bad judgment at times.

This thread needs a "Gleevention"

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Widfun4HjPY[/YOUTUBE]

Next step

- The Barbravention

Next step

- Liza Minelli manifests herself