What's wrong with being gay?

[Daedalus X]

This thread is a continuation of an off topic conversation from here.

First, I think that we all agree that it's important to promote understanding, respect, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to express their identity without fear of discrimination or harm.


Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

[oldbadger]

I specifically asked you about additional bullying laws and you responded with 3 that already exist.

Of course! You were asking about what bullying laws could work, and were shown three already in existence.
Cyber bullying to come.

If you were debating alexxcJRO, he would be calling you names for this. I wonder if you are less powerful or if he might be able to frighten you.

Comments about other members are moderated here... Yes? Do you often do this?

I'm off to consult a board of psychologist.

Really? And where will you find that?

[Clownboat]

I specifically asked you about additional bullying laws and you responded with 3 that already exist.

Of course! You were asking about what bullying laws could work, and were shown three already in existence.
Cyber bullying to come.

If you were debating alexxcJRO, he would be calling you names for this. I wonder if you are less powerful or if he might be able to frighten you.

Comments about other members are moderated here... Yes? Do you often do this?

I'm off to consult a board of psychologist.

Really? And where will you find that?

Outside of your on point query about where one might find a board of psychologists (I know, right!) to consult to determine if bullying has taken place, there is nothing to respond to that would advance any debate you and I might have about inhibiting bullying or how to protect victims from bullies in your reply.

Not even a single comment about 'odd sock day' that was pulled from one of your links or 't-shirt day' that I mentioned.

Perhaps you feel that we already do enough to protect potential victims of bullies (your actions here, not your words suggest this), which would explain your focus on what already exists in place of what more we might consider. If this is your stance, I disagree and would seek to investigate further possible protections from bullies.

Clownboat's proposed ideas so far:
- That good men and women do something. Like shunning the actions of bullies, even when in a debate setting. Such people should be called out when their actions match up with what a bully would do IMO. Whether or not the receiving party is thought to not be weaker or frightened shouldn't protect such behavior. That's basically arguing that it's ok to act like a bully, as long as the victim is not weaker or frightened etc... I do not support this.
- Odd sock day. To show community support that the said community doesn't approve of bullies.
- T-shirt day. (Same reasoning).

You are free to critique any of my proposed ideas. Perhaps I will amend my thinking.

[oldbadger]

Outside of your on point query about where one might find a board of psychologists (I know, right!) to consult to determine if bullying has taken place, there is nothing to respond to that would advance any debate you and I might have about inhibiting bullying or how to protect victims from bullies in your reply.

A while board of 'em? I don't believe you.

Not even a single comment about 'odd sock day' that was pulled from one of your links or 't-shirt day' that I mentioned.

None required.

Perhaps you feel that we already do enough to protect potential victims of bullies (your actions here, not your words suggest this), which would explain your focus on what already exists in place of what more we might consider. If this is your stance, I disagree and would seek to investigate further possible protections from bullies.

Perhaps not.
I support the reduction and deterring if any kind of bullying.
I must say that this debate gas turned you round completely.

Clownboat's proposed ideas so far:
- That good men and women do something. Like shunning the actions of bullies, even when in a debate setting. Such people should be called out when their actions match up with what a bully would do IMO. Whether or not the receiving party is thought to not be weaker or frightened shouldn't protect such behavior. That's basically arguing that it's ok to act like a bully, as long as the victim is not weaker or frightened etc... I do not support this.
- Odd sock day. To show community support that the said community doesn't approve of bullies.
- T-shirt day. (Same reasoning).

You are free to critique any of my proposed ideas. Perhaps I will amend my thinking.

You've already amended your thinking.
Very good indeed.

[Clownboat]

You've already amended your thinking.
Very good indeed.

Not sure what you are meaning, but I do amend my thinking all the time.

Once again... sadly I don't see anything worthy of a replying to that would move this debate forward.

Be well.

[alexxcJRO]

It's a guess based off of my encounters with previous bullies. Bullies are generally not nearly as tough as they believe they are. Also, I doubt you are as rude of a person in public as you are when you feel safe hiding behind your keyboard, but perhaps you do walk around town calling people names.
No.
<Snipped insults in place of debate questions>
That answers 100% of the questions posed to me. I answer debate questions because I'm not afraid to defend my position nor to be convinced to change it if sufficient reasons are presented.

But you said: "Of this I have no doubt. "
Q: If not omniscient how can one affirm the above?
You would need to be omniscient.
You aren't. Pretending to know what you can't know. Then whining to others about things you do yourself.

I know! If you did, you wouldn't have come across as virtue signaling.
Since you are admittedly are not making arguments for additional bullying laws, it is silly to argue for what you already have.

We argued back and forth about existence of laws. Then you changed like the weather. Then you whined that I did not entertain your moving of the goal post.
Now you pretend like that did not happen.

Do you have any clue whatsoever as to what you desire? I thought you wanted laws to prevent bullying, but now you claim you never made such an argument, so I ask for clarification. Do you post here as an avenue to call people names? It's much safer to do it from behind your keyboard compared to out in public I note.
<Snipped more insults in place of debate>

Q: Do you usually whine in real life about things you do yourself?

Cruelty does not equal bulling.

It can though.

Not really. Cruelty alone as a concept does not equal bulling.
Bulling as a concept encompasses many things among which cruelty can be a component present.

Ridicule does not equal bulling.

It can though.

Not really. Ridicule alone as a concept does not equal bulling.
Bulling as a concept encompasses many things among which ridicule can be a component present.

You're ignoring a group setting. It sure can be bullying.

If my 3 brothers ridicule me once for something is not bulling. My brothers do not aggressively want to dominate or intimidate me. We are ridiculing each other this way as a means of having fun and laugh. Ridicule alone as a concept does not equal bulling.
Bulling as a concept encompasses many things among which ridicule can be a component present


By the way sir I offered a definition:
"Definition of the offense:
"The repeated behaviour of a person over a span of time(days, weeks, months, years)who hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do:
Bullying is the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) of an imbalance of physical or social power. This imbalance distinguishes bullying from conflict. Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by hostile intent, imbalance of power and repetition over a period of time."

Here the modified version to include persons:
"Definition of the offense:
"The repeated behaviour of a person/persons over a span of time(days, weeks, months, years)who hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do:
Bullying is the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) of an imbalance of physical or social power. This imbalance distinguishes bullying from conflict. Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by hostile intent, imbalance of power and repetition over a period of time."
"

Before I call you names numerous times, how can I know how much hurt or fright you are going to feel? I could see people taking advantage of this by lying about their hurt or fright levels. How about you?
If I was not un-frightened of you, nor more powerful, then your actions would fit your supplied definition of bullying. This has been my point for calling out your actions here. I have been honest from the start that your actions, the ones that a bully would also partake in are ineffective on me. As I see it, you act like a bully here, just an ineffective one. If I was frightened of you, or if I was less powerful then yourself, would you then admit to being a bully? Just curious.

We have already been over this. The ridicule has been from both sides. There is no bulling present.
Its like this: two man fight over something. Both throw punches.
Then one whines that if the aggression would have been just from one side he would be a victim.
Q: So what?

Is this you arguing that children under 7 should not be guilty of committing the crime of bullying? If so, you might be able to get me to agree.

Non-moral agents.
Sir this happens for other crimes.
Its logic : punishing non-moral agents is illogical.

This is where you start to lose myself and others. It is important that people know they will be guilty of committing a crime before they partake in said action. How can such a person know what a board of psychologists will think or what the maturity level of the other person is?

Sir the board of psychologists is not for judging if the crime was commited or not but for making a case for or against someone being a moral agent.
This problem, issue is present for other crimes where it is hard to say when one is a moral agent or not. Things are not black and white.
You would need to be against every law the incriminates anything.

Twelveteen through seventeen.
I would not like to see calling someone a moron in itself become a possible crime I don't think (and you're not offering up and arguments so far that might change my mind). Where do you stand on that? Should your actions here in this thread really come down to whether or not I could convince a board of psychologist that I'm weak and frightened? If I can, you then deserve to go to prison?
You do realize, that you would be prosecuted for bullying if I can convince a board of psychologist that you have bullied me. This is something you want?

Sir the board of psychologists is not for judging if the crime was committed or not but for determining if someone is an adult or not.
This problem, issue is present for other crimes where we have juvenile justice law separate from law for adults. Things are not black and white.
You would need to be against every law the incriminates anything.

Holy monkeys! No mention of any crime here. You have some support from me!

Sir where there are punishments there is a crime. If there is no crime there would be no punishment.

Got it. Is it possible to know how serious calling someone a moron numerous times will be? I ask, because you allude to serious cases. Specifics are needed.

I clearly mentioned the cases by examples: serious bodily and psychological harm: victim hospitalization because of physical injuries/victims undergoes serious psychological treatment(PTSD and so on), victim commits suicide.

I searched for the term aggravated bullying and got nothing. Therefore, this is hard for me to support. I don't think you deserve any prison time for your actions here for example, even if I could convince a board of psychologist that I'm vulnerable or was frightened by you. For one thing, fear is 100% internal. No one can place fear in another. It's hard for me to support being punished for how much fear a person may or not feel.

Q: Sir we are talking of making something up, no?

Making things(laws) that do not exist.
Q: What is with that: "I searched for the term aggravated bullying and got nothing. "?
Q: How can you find something that does not exist?
You must be trolling me.
Nobody can be this obtuse for real.

Aggravated bullying is far too meaningless of a term currently. Can you provide an example of what you had in mind that would constitute aggravated bullying?

Aggravated bulling means the most serious forms of bulling as aggravated battery means the most serious forms of battery.

[alexxcJRO]

It's a shame, but I'm under the impression that sounding virtuous is the goal, not actually trying to do anything to inhibit bullying.

Be well.

The guy who was against bulling laws(underage critique, subjectivity critique, he said she said situation critique, existence of laws for supposed equivalent offences critique, how its hard to prove-accusing me of bulling in a supposed clever attempt to show this) whines of others because of "not actually trying to do anything to inhibit bullying".
They(me and oldbadger) surely do more then you. Are for starter: for laws for bulling that occurs anywhere: online, school, work and so on.
This is more then rich and comical. This is becoming a tragedy. This is becoming sad.
I am embarrassed to be in the same specie.

Now there is some irony. Not one word in an attempt to show you are not just here to virtue signal. More insults and slander though, which is activities I notice bullies often partake in.

Apparently those kinds of bullies are ok, but the ones that do it to someone that has convinced a board of psychologists that they feel fear or are weaker, those bullies deserve jail time. That is literally the argued for mechanism.

I personally feel that odd sock day or the T-shirt day would be more effective, but don't consider such things because I'm a moron with memory issues that is a poor debater according to our local anti bully person here.

Funny how you don't attempt to debunk the accusation like I did when you accused me of bulling.

Personal remarks(-pointing to hypocritical behaviour and dishonest behaviour in debate) is not bulling.
Using your logic one would conclude criticizing Hitler for his misdeeds is bulling Hitler which off course is not.

[alexxcJRO]

Clownboat's proposed ideas so far:
- That good men and women do something. Like shunning the actions of bullies, even when in a debate setting. Such people should be called out when their actions match up with what a bully would do IMO

Mirror event in 3, 2, 1, ...

alexxcJRO proposed ideas so far:

- That good men and women do something. Like shunning dishonest tactics, the actions of liars, even when in a debate setting. Such people should be called out when their actions match up with what an liar, dishonest person would do IMO

[Clownboat]

Q: If not omniscient how can one affirm the above?

One would have to guess.

Q: Do you usually whine in real life about things you do yourself?

No.

Then one whines that if the aggression would have been just from one side he would be a victim.
Q: So what?

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

Sir where there are punishments there is a crime. If there is no crime there would be no punishment.

This statement is false, but off topic.

I clearly mentioned the cases by examples: serious bodily and psychological harm: victim hospitalization because of physical injuries/victims undergoes serious psychological treatment(PTSD and so on), victim commits suicide.

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

Q: What is with that: "I searched for the term aggravated bullying and got nothing. "?

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

Q: How can you find something that does not exist?

I don't believe so.

Aggravated bulling means the most serious forms of bulling as aggravated battery means the most serious forms of battery.

Where are you getting this definition? I'm not finding it.

This addresses every question in your post plus some extras. Notice how you failed to further the debate. Please ask better questions or start responding to mine like I do yours.

[Clownboat]

Funny how you don't attempt to debunk the accusation like I did when you accused me of bulling.

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

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

Personal remarks(-pointing to hypocritical behaviour and dishonest behaviour in debate) is not bulling.

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

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

Using your logic one would conclude criticizing Hitler for his misdeeds is bulling Hitler which off course is not.

Then you miss the logic that was presented.
You have in fact acted in a way that bullies do. You have argued your innocence by pointing out that I'm stronger and not afraid of you. I agree with you. What you fail to answer is when I ask how a person might no ahead of time as to whether their actions are being done to someone weaker or afraid. Specifically, how did you know I was stronger and not afraid of you when you began the name calling?

You didn't and that's a problem. One that will put innocent people in cages if we simply make bullying a crime. Since we can't make bullying itself a crime (as we are likely both guilty of that here in this thread) I'm trying to determine what specific action(s) you would like to be made criminal. If you recall, your initial specifics mentioned were shoving someone's head in a toilet, stealing from them and hanging them from hooks. Such things are already crimes and I have been asking you since that point as to what you would like to see become criminal. You have supplied nothing to discuss that you would like to see become a crime that might inhibit bullying, so I accuse you of being here to virtue signal. Something I am very willing to retract by the way.

[Clownboat]

alexxcJRO proposed ideas so far:

- That good men and women do something. Like shunning dishonest tactics, the actions of liars, even when in a debate setting.

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

Such people should be called out when their actions match up with what an liar, dishonest person would do IMO

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

Be well alexxcJRO.