Just a note Willy: I'm going to ask you to step off the current line for a moment. One of the reasons you're experiencing such stiff resistance has to do with your attitude. People are reacting poorly to your white supremacy, at the very least. That you alternately demand respect and pretend to be utterly stupid only hurts your credibility among your fellows at Sciforums. While I am glad you're presenting a more enlightened view of homosexuality than you've given other classifications within humanity, I'm afraid your response to PJdude1219 doesn't do much to help your credibility. In the topic in question, you asked at least two very interesting questions; first, there was the topic post. The second is implicitly invoked by your comment about homosexual domestic abuse statistics and the lack of any specific laws pertaining to such abuse. However, the statistical response may well have been a good point for another discussion. The idea that "at least they understand each other" (Carcano's point), as I read it, tends more toward the "battle of the sexes". Many people operate by the notion that men and women simply don't understand each other, and one thing that you will commonly hear from homosexuals is that persons of the same gender can perform oral sex better than a heterosexual partner. This is one aspect of that understanding. In the one who has a penis or a clitoris will, by this assertion, understand better how to make a similar instrument respond. In the battle of the sexes, men are too rough on the clit and vagina, and women are too clumsy and inefficient when handling a penis. (e.g., They can't "do it" right.) The understanding also seems to translate into other aspects of life: male friends have arguments between them that don't damage their relationships as severely as a similar dispute in heterofriendships. Women ... well, I would presume the same, but there is also the prevailing myth that women are even cattier toward one another than toward men. I'm going with the benefit of the doubt; the context of a person's concerns might well be better understood by one who shares more commonalities. The fact of domestic violence and abuse exists. And, yes, there needs to be some constructive focus on abuse in homosexual relationships. (If the subject sets off people's alarms, it's largely because we only ever hear about it in accusing terms; that it exists is used as propaganda against homosexuals, and that homosexuals try to address the subject publicly is often received as a subversive attempt to further the "homosexual agenda".) In the case of the homosexual thread, you asked a very interesting question, and if you feel people took you wrongly, I can only advise that your reputation preceded you. It's unfortunate, but it's part of human discourse. There are and have been quite a few people around here who focus on one sentence out of several or many, and become upset with me. And some of them will self-righteously crow that they intentionally didn't read the rest of the sentences. What a pity. If you feel you're being taken out of context, I would urge you to remember the hole you've dug yourself into, and whether you think that's a fair assignation or not, it's the image of yourself you've put forward. It does take some work to shake off those preconceptions people have built. I just went through that the other night in the topic about the police shooting in Oklahoma; I let it slide the first time because the poster who made the mistake is infamous for such mistakes. The second time, though, I damn near lit someone I generally respect. And it would have been ugly. But it's true: I have a reputation for opposing the legitimization of humanity's brutal side that people may well have stumbled when I showed that part of myself, and they may have failed to read through the rest of it. In the end, I limited myself to a sharpened but vague disclaimer, and set about trying to deal with the more relevant and important considerations of the discussion. And, as I recall, the discussion moved forward just fine. As with your example about feeling baited by moderators, I'm quite sure you can find better examples. No, wait, strike that. I'm absolutely sure you can find better examples. But the moderators aren't like the guards outside Buckingham Palace. We're not going to stand motionless and expressionless while people abuse us or each other. Right now, while you may have some sympathy from like-minded members, your prestige in this community is more notorious than anything else. If you feel that reputation is unjust, I can promise you with all sincerity that staying on the attack will not help. (I now return this topic to its ... uh ... original purpose.)
Nice to see some science in here! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have you considered publishing for review?
kinda not hardcore propaganda but soft as i read i noted it did not give any sources which means stats could be made up
Everyone i know of here and in life is exactly like Willy, including you. The details may be different but that is all. This is called preference and if that is racist or biased then every single one of is is racist and biased and that notion is ridiculous. What IS disturbing are the attempts to stifle and beat those who express this and are honest into submission (using various methods). So you can say the people i dislike desreve it but you are just attempting to justify your own bias. Sometimes this bias is warranted, if we look at our history this was a matter of survival. Is it wrong? it would BE wrong if most everyone were not afflicted with this bias but since this is not the case i see no difference between Willy, Tiassa or SAM....that is UnbiasedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But John, the moderators here don't see it that way. Some particular viewpoints are so despicable, they don't have the right to be expressed on a public fora.
People are human. Are you suggesting we revoke the standing rule against posting hateful or threatening material? • • • I would ask you and everyone else to realize that certain posters here receive special protection from the moderators and administration. The list might surprise people. There are those who give every appearance of deliberately screwing context in order to pretend offense. Those who cite sentences out of context and say, "I didn't bother reading the rest," when reading the next sentence would nullify or at least address their purported objection. I've got posters pretending they don't know what an ellipsis is. I've had to tear into decent folks in my forum for being too hard on provocateurs who are simply unwilling to take what they dish; in other words, it was unfair to the provocateur to let the response play by the same rules. Some of our most inflammatory posters are the ones complaining about how people respond to their deliberate provocation. And these provocateurs, while being specifically protected by the moderators, dare complain that the moderators are being unfair? What am I supposed to say when someone provides an unlinked example, and when I track it down, it turns out they're claiming insult because someone actually agreed with them? Are they really missing it? (How?) Are they being sinister? How did the context get flipped in their mind? Why should we protect the people whose behavior resembles someone who is looking for trouble, looking for a fight, seeking a problem to complain about? Why should we protect the people whose posts are so rarely affirmative, whose only purpose is to attack and be rude to other people? Why should we protect those people who never seem to learn who they're dealing with, and insist that what other people write can only be interpreted in one way, and furthermore insist that that way is not what the author intended? What of those folks who look past well-established patterns and contexts about their fellow members in order to pretend great offense? What of those people whose only purpose here is to denigrate this posting community? Why should we protect them? Why shouldn't we simply send them packing? Because one of the obligations of good faith is to show compassion toward those who act in bad faith. Now, perhaps it's just varying interpretations of honesty, but bad faith isn't honest. If we kick them out, we're being oppressive. If we try to communicate, we're baiting and taking advantage of our authority. If we speak their language, we're being hypocrites. In other words, if we don't hand them the keys to the henhouse and let them rape the chickens, we're just not being fair.
Obviously you are too restricted here, perhaps there are other forums that allow for the freedom of expression you desire?
if you bait mods then yeah they will come after you, i have had infraction but i deserved it i guess!! but the other mods like SAM i thik are doing a good job, but however i do wish they wouldnt censor posts
Which posts do you wish I had not censored? Whenever I have deleted any posts, the posters usually write to me and I explain why I have deleted them. I personally dislike deleting anything unless it is outright abusive and will lead to a flame war.
S.A.M: Oh, that's sweet. An arrogant poster who has been on this forum for 1/4 the time I have, suggesting that perhaps I don't belong here. Go back to planting your roadside bombs, S.A.M. Oh... wait a sec...
