The Gay Thread

Quote: fleaswatter

WHY IS HE NOT SUSPENDED???

Glad to finally have this convo.

Restraint. Since the beginning, I've been loathe to use my own limited experience as a benchmark for what is and is not appropriate. I've long held the stance and stated publicly that this is yours to make good or s#$% on and take as hands off an approach as I can, and while I certainly have my many biases (which I openly admit to) I like to think my actions are either unbiased enough to not feel shame over, or not conducted at all due to bias which I feel is not ignorable.

So let's look at this...

Quote: terp

GOP says hell yes to children getting married
Pretty sick
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/377367-tennessee-gop-kill-ban-on-child-marriage
Republicans hate gays as you can see in this thread but support children getting married. Talk about bizarre

I've no knowledge of this issue, but it is in itself a worthy topic. terp then engages in low effort comms that are the source (IMO) of many problems, by using umbrella terms such as "Republicans... support children getting married", which is the type of surface think, click baity BS prevalent in too much media and most of this thread. Talking about the Republicans who are for such a thing, absolute fair game. But to word it so that it includes the vast majority for whom this wackadoo does not represent, I feel, is either low calorie tabloidism not fit for the forum, or inciteful jabs at a subset of the forum. Suspending terp for multiple postings, trolling, bullying or general ungentlemanly behavior would require only a pragmatic act of rule. I will give you that. (FWIW, his follow up, specifying the Republicans of Tennessee and asking the members of the forum their stance is, in comparison, a perfect example of how I would expect this to be handled.)

Next comes AZD. A regular comment goes in error, is corrected, and the correction refused. I try to respect beliefs, but I cannot accept refusal of fact as anything but trolling. And this is me being honest; if a single one of you would handle things differently, I remain open to critique. But refusal of fact is something I just can't understand other than a willful act to incite, abuse, or divide. I think I do well on allowing free speech, as I make no effort to silence FrG (who lacks proof), quiet down the many climate deniers (despite 95%+ agreement to the contrary), or shut down this thread (other than by providing counter argument). But folks have been nuked for denying fact. People who were perfect gentlemen, gone, because denial of fact is in itself harmful and detrimental to the forum. Saying, say, Saudi Arabia is not an example of social conservatism, on it's own is merely a mistake. Continuing to insist that it's not, after being corrected and having the whole of human knowledge at your fingertips... again, I cannot understand it any other way other than trolling. And, also again, I am open to alternative views, if you have one.

Shrek right behind him, comparing gays to NAMBLA. Again, people have been nuked for less. Again, it's more low effort surface think of "If I can make one connection in any way, I can involve the entire group." It's not right no matter which way it goes or what the topic is. Calling out specifics? Fair Game. Using this sweeping umbrella style of ignorance pretending I don't see it as the attacks they are? That's a breach of the rules, and grounds for suspension.

From there the thread devolves into a mass of straw man swatting and ignoring of answers, neither of which are punishable offenses. Eventually you yourself pop in to call terp out about his "departure". I don't care if terp virtue signaled a walk out because it conveniently lined up with his vacay or not. That is not actionable. He did not ask mgmt. for any sort of ban, and so mgmt. is not involved. Except, of course, to deal with your derail / hijack and arguable bullying.

I think I personally only have one lone reply of why AZD's "marry who you love" strawman was faulty, and that was simple statement of fact that children cannot enter contracts. That is not actionable. Had I picked any single other thought in my head but that exact one, it would have been and I'd be in this group, too.

There's the "why". I don't react without examination and examination shows the "correct" action is to close the thread, as a majority would be banned under letter-of-the-law application of the rules.

There's not a way for me to fix it, and I'm not much for being used as a weapon. So,... close the thread, enforce the rules, or leave it to y'all?

Quote: Face

Glad to finally have this convo.

[snipped to save space]

Next comes AZD. A regular comment goes in error, is corrected, and the correction refused. I try to respect beliefs, but I cannot accept refusal of fact as anything but trolling. And this is me being honest; if a single one of you would handle things differently, I remain open to critique. But refusal of fact is something I just can't understand other than a willful act to incite, abuse, or divide. I think I do well on allowing free speech, as I make no effort to silence FrG (who lacks proof), quiet down the many climate deniers (despite 95%+ agreement to the contrary), or shut down this thread (other than by providing counter argument). But folks have been nuked for denying fact. People who were perfect gentlemen, gone, because denial of fact is in itself harmful and detrimental to the forum. Saying, say, Saudi Arabia is not an example of social conservatism, on it's own is merely a mistake. Continuing to insist that it's not, after being corrected and having the whole of human knowledge at your fingertips... again, I cannot understand it any other way other than trolling. And, also again, I am open to alternative views, if you have one.

Saudi Arabia is not an example of "social conservatism." It is wahabism and sharia law. Neither have a connection to social conservatism in the USA. That is my point and will remain as such.

Quote:

I think I personally only have one lone reply of why AZD's "marry who you love" strawman was faulty, and that was simple statement of fact that children cannot enter contracts. That is not actionable. Had I picked any single other thought in my head but that exact one, it would have been and I'd be in this group, too.

First off is the definition of "children." The posters on the left are acting as if teenagers are "children." They are not. Well, I guess they are when it is convenient for the right people. I used the "marry who you love" argument because that is all we heard during the gay marriage debates. Now, all of the sudden, that does not matter to them. The laws in question have been on the books for over 100 years in most cases, the liberals here are using language to imply that conservatives want to marry off 10 year olds.

Jerry Lee Lewis first married at age 16. Later he married a girl of 13, said marriage lasted 13 years. Girls married young and still do in some of these places. The same people who scream "keep the government out of my bedroom!" and "her body, her choice!" all of the sudden want the government in the bedroom and the 15 year old who can make a decision to get an abortion somehow cannot make a decision?

IOW, I am asking them to defend their positions and show why they are not hypocrites. Take it for what you want.

Quote:

There's not a way for me to fix it, and I'm not much for being used as a weapon. So,... close the thread, enforce the rules, or leave it to y'all?

Yes, there is a way to fix it. Suspend the guy who called several members "pedophiles." I think we all know that is clearly way over the line.

Quote: Face

Glad to finally have this convo.

Restraint. Since the beginning, I've been loathe to use my own limited experience as a benchmark for what is and is not appropriate. I've long held the stance and stated publicly that this is yours to make good or s#$% on and take as hands off an approach as I can, and while I certainly have my many biases (which I openly admit to) I like to think my actions are either unbiased enough to not feel shame over, or not conducted at all due to bias which I feel is not ignorable.

So let's look at this...



I've no knowledge of this issue, but it is in itself a worthy topic. terp then engages in low effort comms that are the source (IMO) of many problems, by using umbrella terms such as "Republicans... support children getting married", which is the type of surface think, click baity BS prevalent in too much media and most of this thread. Talking about the Republicans who are for such a thing, absolute fair game. But to word it so that it includes the vast majority for whom this wackadoo does not represent, I feel, is either low calorie tabloidism not fit for the forum, or inciteful jabs at a subset of the forum. Suspending terp for multiple postings, trolling, bullying or general ungentlemanly behavior would require only a pragmatic act of rule. I will give you that. (FWIW, his follow up, specifying the Republicans of Tennessee and asking the members of the forum their stance is, in comparison, a perfect example of how I would expect this to be handled.)

Next comes AZD. A regular comment goes in error, is corrected, and the correction refused. I try to respect beliefs, but I cannot accept refusal of fact as anything but trolling. And this is me being honest; if a single one of you would handle things differently, I remain open to critique. But refusal of fact is something I just can't understand other than a willful act to incite, abuse, or divide. I think I do well on allowing free speech, as I make no effort to silence FrG (who lacks proof), quiet down the many climate deniers (despite 95%+ agreement to the contrary), or shut down this thread (other than by providing counter argument). But folks have been nuked for denying fact. People who were perfect gentlemen, gone, because denial of fact is in itself harmful and detrimental to the forum. Saying, say, Saudi Arabia is not an example of social conservatism, on it's own is merely a mistake. Continuing to insist that it's not, after being corrected and having the whole of human knowledge at your fingertips... again, I cannot understand it any other way other than trolling. And, also again, I am open to alternative views, if you have one.

Shrek right behind him, comparing gays to NAMBLA. Again, people have been nuked for less. Again, it's more low effort surface think of "If I can make one connection in any way, I can involve the entire group." It's not right no matter which way it goes or what the topic is. Calling out specifics? Fair Game. Using this sweeping umbrella style of ignorance pretending I don't see it as the attacks they are? That's a breach of the rules, and grounds for suspension.

From there the thread devolves into a mass of straw man swatting and ignoring of answers, neither of which are punishable offenses. Eventually you yourself pop in to call terp out about his "departure". I don't care if terp virtue signaled a walk out because it conveniently lined up with his vacay or not. That is not actionable. He did not ask mgmt. for any sort of ban, and so mgmt. is not involved. Except, of course, to deal with your derail / hijack and arguable bullying.

I think I personally only have one lone reply of why AZD's "marry who you love" strawman was faulty, and that was simple statement of fact that children cannot enter contracts. That is not actionable. Had I picked any single other thought in my head but that exact one, it would have been and I'd be in this group, too.

There's the "why". I don't react without examination and examination shows the "correct" action is to close the thread, as a majority would be banned under letter-of-the-law application of the rules.

There's not a way for me to fix it, and I'm not much for being used as a weapon. So,... close the thread, enforce the rules, or leave it to y'all?

It seems like this thread is just devolving in people calling for the suspension of people they disagree with. I think closing it is the best option, this thread has long derailed from discussing Gay Issues, a more responsible thread can be started if necessary, and a separate child marriage thread can be started if supporters want to discuss it further.

As for suspending, I am happy to be suspended if I legitimately broke a rule (I am pretty measured in my replies and I stick to substance so I am not sure where I would), but I have no issue accepting responsibility if I did break a rule.
But, the only way that would be fair is if you suspend everyone who broke a rule here (and many people spoke far more vulgar than I).

But, this thread should be closed, it is derailed and devolved, more specific threads can/should be started to cover specific issues that interest people from this thread.

Quote: Face

Glad to finally have this convo.

Restraint. Since the beginning, I've been loathe to use my own limited experience as a benchmark for what is and is not appropriate. I've long held the stance and stated publicly that this is yours to make good or s#$% on and take as hands off an approach as I can, and while I certainly have my many biases (which I openly admit to) I like to think my actions are either unbiased enough to not feel shame over, or not conducted at all due to bias which I feel is not ignorable.

So let's look at this...



I've no knowledge of this issue, but it is in itself a worthy topic. terp then engages in low effort comms that are the source (IMO) of many problems, by using umbrella terms such as "Republicans... support children getting married", which is the type of surface think, click baity BS prevalent in too much media and most of this thread. Talking about the Republicans who are for such a thing, absolute fair game. But to word it so that it includes the vast majority for whom this wackadoo does not represent, I feel, is either low calorie tabloidism not fit for the forum, or inciteful jabs at a subset of the forum. Suspending terp for multiple postings, trolling, bullying or general ungentlemanly behavior would require only a pragmatic act of rule. I will give you that. (FWIW, his follow up, specifying the Republicans of Tennessee and asking the members of the forum their stance is, in comparison, a perfect example of how I would expect this to be handled.)

Next comes AZD. A regular comment goes in error, is corrected, and the correction refused. I try to respect beliefs, but I cannot accept refusal of fact as anything but trolling. And this is me being honest; if a single one of you would handle things differently, I remain open to critique. But refusal of fact is something I just can't understand other than a willful act to incite, abuse, or divide. I think I do well on allowing free speech, as I make no effort to silence FrG (who lacks proof), quiet down the many climate deniers (despite 95%+ agreement to the contrary), or shut down this thread (other than by providing counter argument). But folks have been nuked for denying fact. People who were perfect gentlemen, gone, because denial of fact is in itself harmful and detrimental to the forum. Saying, say, Saudi Arabia is not an example of social conservatism, on it's own is merely a mistake. Continuing to insist that it's not, after being corrected and having the whole of human knowledge at your fingertips... again, I cannot understand it any other way other than trolling. And, also again, I am open to alternative views, if you have one.

Shrek right behind him, comparing gays to NAMBLA. Again, people have been nuked for less. Again, it's more low effort surface think of "If I can make one connection in any way, I can involve the entire group." It's not right no matter which way it goes or what the topic is. Calling out specifics? Fair Game. Using this sweeping umbrella style of ignorance pretending I don't see it as the attacks they are? That's a breach of the rules, and grounds for suspension.

From there the thread devolves into a mass of straw man swatting and ignoring of answers, neither of which are punishable offenses. Eventually you yourself pop in to call terp out about his "departure". I don't care if terp virtue signaled a walk out because it conveniently lined up with his vacay or not. That is not actionable. He did not ask mgmt. for any sort of ban, and so mgmt. is not involved. Except, of course, to deal with your derail / hijack and arguable bullying.

I think I personally only have one lone reply of why AZD's "marry who you love" strawman was faulty, and that was simple statement of fact that children cannot enter contracts. That is not actionable. Had I picked any single other thought in my head but that exact one, it would have been and I'd be in this group, too.

There's the "why". I don't react without examination and examination shows the "correct" action is to close the thread, as a majority would be banned under letter-of-the-law application of the rules.

There's not a way for me to fix it, and I'm not much for being used as a weapon. So,... close the thread, enforce the rules, or leave it to y'all?

There is restraint and there is common sense. For the vast majority of your posts and judgements I fully support and agree with you, but NOT in this case. Before I explain further, look at the following post and see what has recently earned 2 members here suspensions by the Wizard:

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/2797/29/#post124475

Quote: Evenbob

Of course not. It's one of the
most interesting reality shows
ever on TV, why would you.

Quote: ams288

Doesn’t mean much coming from you. You have awful taste in movies and TV.

Quote: Wizard

Personal insults. Three-day suspensions for both of you.

I can see not any possible explanation where saying certain members (righties) support pedophilia is not suspendable.

You said: "a majority would be banned under letter-of-the-law application of the rules" which is probably true but I still feel that terapined's posts have so egregiously violated the rules that I stand by my comments.

Thanks, Face.
Another epic.

Quote: Gandler

Birth control and abortion are very different.

DOn't change the subject. I'm talking about abortion and you know it.

You libbies believe it's no big deal for young girls to kill an unborn child, yet for some reason you guys go nuts and scream bloody murder when it comes to young girls getting married. Strange priorities, but I've given up trying to figure you people out. 🙄

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, there is a way to fix it. Suspend the guy who called several members "pedophiles." I think we all know that is clearly way over the line.

Quote: fleaswatter

I can see not any possible explanation where saying certain members (righties) support pedophilia is not suspendable.

Yeah, I don't get it. If the BLM guy just made a general statement about pedophilia and Republicans, then it would be classless, but I don't think anyone would be complaining. It would just be business as usual.

What the BLM guy said was totally totally different. He specifically called out members by name and said they support pedophiles. I never called out members by name and said they are part of NAMBLA.

But oh well, the BLM guy is now on notice. Hope he cleans up his act.

Quote: terapined

Tennessee is a pretty big state.
I was pretty shocked to read that the republican party there supports child marriage
I have to imagine all the conservatives on this board as well as liberals are against child marriage
Its just one of those issues everybody can agree on regardless if conservative or liberal. Child marriage is wrong
Yet its the republican party in TN that is fighting the child marriage ban
Any comment by conservatives here? Gotta imagine you guys will throw the TN republican party under the bus. Then, maybe not

Still awaiting a comment from righties regarding the TN rep party in my reasonable even handed post

Quote: terapined

Still awaiting a comment from righties regarding the TN rep party in my reasonable even handed post

"Quote: terapined
Tennessee is a pretty big state.
I was pretty shocked to read that the republican party there supports child marriage
I have to imagine all the conservatives on this board as well as liberals are against child marriage
Its just one of those issues everybody can agree on regardless if conservative or liberal. Child marriage is wrong
Yet its the republican party in TN that is fighting the child marriage ban
Any comment by conservatives here? Gotta imagine you guys will throw the TN republican party under the bus. Then, maybe not"

I'm not sure what the laws are in Tennessee, but with parental consent I support young marriages. That is different then saying I think it is a good idea.

Some folks grow up fast. The youngest to die in the Vietnam war was Dan Bullock at the age of 15, so in his case if he wanted to get married, then in my opinion, hell yes. If you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to take a wife. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/nyregion/youngest-american-soldier-killed-vietnam.html

I don't know peoples situations, but as I said, with parental consent, I'll agree with whatever the states have decided as far as marriage goes. There are plenty of laws to make sure old guys aren't marrying young girls except for in the rarest of circumstances.

Elvis was dating Priscilla when she was 14.

Quote: DRich

Age is just a number, it is not a sign of maturity. Why not evaluate each person on a case by case basis.

I think there would be plenty of 18 year olds considered not mature enough to marry and probably some 16 year olds that are.

I agree with this post.

An emancipated minor can sign contracts. https://ctlawhelp.org/en/a-teenagers-guide-to-emancipation