|
On November 17 2012 00:41 Gene wrote:
Are you saying that the idea of not tolerating homophobia is a bad policy?
God I wish I could say that was a typo. Idk what that was.
Yes I am. First of all, I don't think that there is not even an unbiased or universal definition on what "homofobia" is.
Second, I just don't agree with pursuing an agenda by banning the oposition. If homosexuality cannot become universaly accepted based on convincing argumentation, than the anti-homophobes are obviously doing something wrong.
Again, I have nothing against homosexuality and I have been actively supporting gay marriage and adoption for gay couples in many discussions. Luckily, I was able to have these discussions, because the oposing side was not forbidden to state their opinions and arguments!
|
Read back a few pages.
The people insisting that baby was a perfectly valid word for both were also making the argument that because both pre birth and post birth babies are defined (by them) as babies they both have the same moral value. It was an argument from the definition itself and they insisted that categorising babies into born and unborn while not adding any other qualifier or judgement beyond whether they live in a womb was forcing them to become pro-choice.
It was quite a remarkable failure to understand why the ontological argument fails.
Actually it was your repeated dumbshit assertions that an ontological argument was being made when it never was. You just wished really hard it was because it was convenient for you to write horribly cluttered sentences "proving" this. If clarity and precision is such a virtue, learn to write please.
You're still on your strawman hobby horse. You're too stupid to do anything else. If you can't figure out why 'I call it a baby because I believe it is a baby for these (or this) reason(s)' is not an ontological argument (the opposite would be, unfortunately despite you repeating it over and over this is not the case), you're beyond hope. In literally three quarters of your posts in this thread you have included at least one strawman and it has been the centerpiece of the argument you were attempting to make in that post.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
I can't really blame him personally, he just does, what the society does. When the state does this to you, it feels kinda natural to do it to others, doesn't it? Most of the Europe has laws that dictate how certain parts of history happened. But if "homophobia" (whatever that is) is not welcome here, that should be probably right in the rules and explainet thoroughly, because, surprise, KwarK's idea on what is homophobia is not everyones.
There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment.
Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are.
|
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue?
|
On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic.
Lol what an assumption!
|
On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue?
I'm sure if you could come up with an argument against gay marriage equal rights that A: didn't involve forcing religion on people, B: actually made sense, and C: actually involved current information (no references to decades old lists of mental health issues calling homosexuality a mental disorder), the mods would at least allow it as long as the debate stayed sane.
I've got $5 that says you don't have an argument that fits those criteria.
|
On November 17 2012 01:32 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. Lol what an assumption!
I'm asking Kwark this. I don't think it's a far-fetched assumption.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue?
I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one.
You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated.
|
It suddenly strikes me as ironic that the proponents of assigning rights to unborn children has a decent correlation to those hoping to keep rights away from homosexuals.
Edit : I don't mean to speak of any of you. Honest. Just an observation of the country at large.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 17 2012 00:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Actually it was your repeated dumbshit assertions that an ontological argument was being made when it never was
On November 16 2012 04:22 KwarK wrote:
They are exploiting the vagueness of the word, and the fact that both sides use it to mean different things, to skip the stage where the actual argument is found. The "of course they're comparable, I'm using the same word for both, they're the same thing" is the problem, the word is vague.
On November 16 2012 04:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
That is the actual argument!
On November 16 2012 05:47 KwarK wrote:
I know that's the actual argument they use. That's the problem. It's not an argument.
"I use the same word for both" is not and will never be a valid argument for why two things are the same in a debate with somebody else who thinks they are different. How are you not getting this? This is getting into the damn ontological argument here. You can't demonstrate something to be true through simply defining it as true with words, you need to fill in the argument.
The ongoing issue here is that you still don't seem to get what the ontological argument is which is why you can't seem to notice that you're using it.
|
On November 17 2012 01:43 Gene wrote:
It suddenly strikes me as ironic that the proponents of assigning rights to unborn children has a decent correlation to those hoping to keep rights away from homosexuals.
Yeah, there's further amusement value in that they want to keep government aid and affordable healthcare away from the people more likely to be in the position of wanting an abortion. As a general rule, not every specific individual.
KwarK threads never fail to entertain, though.
|
On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
I can't really blame him personally, he just does, what the society does. When the state does this to you, it feels kinda natural to do it to others, doesn't it? Most of the Europe has laws that dictate how certain parts of history happened. But if "homophobia" (whatever that is) is not welcome here, that should be probably right in the rules and explainet thoroughly, because, surprise, KwarK's idea on what is homophobia is not everyones. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are.
This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar?
Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service.
For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does.
Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion.
|
On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated.
The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality.
You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed?
|
On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
I can't really blame him personally, he just does, what the society does. When the state does this to you, it feels kinda natural to do it to others, doesn't it? Most of the Europe has laws that dictate how certain parts of history happened. But if "homophobia" (whatever that is) is not welcome here, that should be probably right in the rules and explainet thoroughly, because, surprise, KwarK's idea on what is homophobia is not everyones. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. It is impossible that it is that difficult to understand. Your last paragraph entirely is read as moronic. Every codification of rules or agreements has an elastic clause as it is not possible to touch upon every single thing a person should or shouldn't do. The existence of this clause does not make the rest of the rules useless.
keeping up with you guys via my phone is tough work
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed?
It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
I can't really blame him personally, he just does, what the society does. When the state does this to you, it feels kinda natural to do it to others, doesn't it? Most of the Europe has laws that dictate how certain parts of history happened. But if "homophobia" (whatever that is) is not welcome here, that should be probably right in the rules and explainet thoroughly, because, surprise, KwarK's idea on what is homophobia is not everyones. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion.
Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained
- Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely!
The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like.
|
It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume.
10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go.
|
On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic.
JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting.
|
On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting.
Any argument I've seen either involves religion (this was used to justify enslaving blacks), involves outdated information calling homosexuality a mental disorder (medical shit gets reevaluated regularly with new information, so use it), or involves a sexual deviance "slippery slope" argument to equate gays to pedophiles. (Oh, by the way, any sexual conduct that doesn't have the express intention of impregnating a woman is 'deviant' in the same manner, so I guess if you like head, stay away from the kiddos, freak.)
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting.
Fortunately it's actually quite difficult to get banned on tl for a borderline post and if mods do disagree on it then you can request that it gets discussed in the mod forum. Getting permabanned is even harder, there are people with much longer histories than you still collecting warnings and short tempbans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
