|
United States41976 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case.
If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations.
But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory.
|
On November 15 2012 07:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:wegandi was banned for questioning kwark's use of "foetus" instead of "fetus." kwark is from the UK. interesting that he got a 1 week ban for being a dick and saying "Can we spell fetus correctly?" Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
PS: One of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you do not want to take that risk then do not engage in the act. Just the same as in banking - a loan is a risk. If you don't want to happen to lose the money you loaned, perhaps you shouldn't make the loans in the first place. It is a voluntary choice, just because ex-ante you dislike your choice, doesn't mean you have the right to murder.
User was temp banned for this post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=382015¤tpage=5#93Wegandi was just temp banned for 1 week by KwarK.
That account was created on 2011-03-12 14:09:12 and had 877 posts.
Reason: My language is called English too and tl is not an exclusively American forum. Next time you feel like being a dick over correct spelling of words you should remember this moment. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=1442#28829 Complaining about spelling in lieu of actually making a point is pretty fucking retarded. Complaining about it and being wrong is even more retarded. But the biggest prize goes to the guy who does both of the above to a moderator. It would have been banworthy shitposting either way, whoever he did it to could have reported it and he'd have been moderated but skipping the middle steps and just going right up to the guy empowered to act is pretty fucking dumb.
Actually fetus is the correctly spelling if you're talking medically, even though queens english still uses feotus their medical journals use fetus, feotus can be considered laymen's term to some extent. An argument on spelling is frivolous though, the contention point is understanding and everybody knows what everyone else is talking about, so yes kawk is right about him just posting that, sorta like a grammer nazi, if you want to ban grammer nazi's i have no problems with that.
As far as going banning really offensive speech that isn't limited to kwark, that's sorta tl habbit for hatespeech and denying horrible events.
Now if you combed over kawk's post history you can probably find something that would have gotten even a veteran user banned but that's probably common among any user who posts opinionated and frequently, but then you have to find the role of banling. Do banlings have to be exemplar archons? That is up to the top brass of TL to sort out not exactly regular users. TL ban policy has less set in stone instructions and more of general guidelines and guttural responses based on TL history.
|
On November 17 2012 03:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote: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. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote: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. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument. why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of bestiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man.
Most of them don't but the lunatic fringe, who makes the most noise, like santorum, do in fact compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, and go read one of the boy scout threads for fast proof people who thunk being gay makes you want to rape little boys.
|
On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory.
seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. if its purely hate, then ban their asses.
|
On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid.
If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception.
The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes.
|
On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post.
This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me.
|
On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes.
with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them.
with respect to your second "point," . . . .
|
On November 17 2012 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips?
Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes. with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them. with respect to your second "point," . . . .
My first point is that people complain about KwarK no matter how he goes about getting involved in a thread, and he's rather got me impressed at how he can be too aggressive and dictatorial while being so horribly passive aggressive.
My second point is that people love to complain about KwarK, when he's the primary reason the General forum stays down to mild levels of cesspool.
|
On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me.
Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you.
|
On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you.
There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited.
|
On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited.
And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were "out to get me."
|
On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me.
Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on.
|
On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on.
Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there.
|
On November 17 2012 04:46 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes. with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them. with respect to your second "point," . . . . My first point is that people complain about KwarK no matter how he goes about getting involved in a thread, and he's rather got me impressed at how he can be too aggressive and dictatorial while being so horribly passive aggressive. My second point is that people love to complain about KwarK, when he's the primary reason the General forum stays down to mild levels of cesspool.
i fail to see how either of those points relate to the issue kwark and i were discussing. i want to tell half the tl.net population that they are retards, and i get warnings saying "just dont post." well, kwark, "just dont post."
|
On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there.
You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans.
|
On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans.
How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post?
|
On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you.
On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation.
Uhm, no, reading it in context the most obvious implication is that people wrongly worship the ground Europe walks on.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231206#5
There's the thread.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231975#1
Your feedback thread, where you basically admit you were at least being rude, because you felt moderation was being handled poorly, which leaves you with violations even if your defense is taken as 100% true.
And if you don't remember saying the mods were trying to get you personally, check your own posts in this thread. I've felt that way before, but I don't go retracting it when there's inconvenient evidence the other way.
On November 17 2012 04:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:46 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive.
Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults.
of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes. with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them. with respect to your second "point," . . . . My first point is that people complain about KwarK no matter how he goes about getting involved in a thread, and he's rather got me impressed at how he can be too aggressive and dictatorial while being so horribly passive aggressive. My second point is that people love to complain about KwarK, when he's the primary reason the General forum stays down to mild levels of cesspool. i fail to see how either of those points relate to the issue kwark and i were discussing. i want to tell half the tl.net population that they are retards, and i get warnings saying "just dont post." well, kwark, "just dont post."
If he doesn't post, and just uses mod notes and mod powers, we get complaints about him stifling discussion with his mod powers.
|
On November 17 2012 05:02 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Uhm, no, reading it in context the most obvious implication is that people wrongly worship the ground Europe walks on. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231206#5There's the thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231975#1Your feedback thread, where you basically admit you were at least being rude, because you felt moderation was being handled poorly, which leaves you with violations even if your defense is taken as 100% true. And if you don't remember saying the mods were trying to get you personally, check your own posts in this thread. I've felt that way before, but I don't go retracting it when there's inconvenient evidence the other way.
Dangit ninja'd
|
On November 17 2012 04:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans. How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post?
I reckon that's jasper's assertion, and not entirely mine. I happen to think that ban was justified, but we have some twenty pages of posts by now, all attesting to the fact that arguing with jdseemoreglass is a task best reserved for walls and other inanimate objects. I wouldn't let a slug suffer having to listen to you.
|
1) The implication is that they are unfairly critical of the US and hypocritical because of it.
2) Kwark has stated already that people are given more leeway in website feedback, so my "tone" should not be a violation of anything.
3) The part they considered most rude, that website feedback is largely pointless, is I think a pretty accurate description. There are exceptions, but not many.
4) I don't know why so many here resort to personal insults again and again. I've been nothing but respectful to the people on this forum and I'd appreciate some basic courtesy if you don't want me to treat you like shit in return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
