Homosexuality Thread Lock

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that took the time to read Stu's posts could tell that not only was he bigotted, he was also very dishonest in the way he constantly (1) attempted to switch the debate (2) not only asserted his propaganda but also falsely asserted that he had already proven said asserions and (3) ignoring those that could see through his dishonesty and fallacious logic including eventually all of mine, zeejustin, and a couple other posters posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but this isn't the reason the thread was locked. Are you now attempting to switch the debate yourself? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] All people debating like that do is hurt their position, so he was actually doing us a service!!

[/ QUOTE ]
True the reason he was banned was homophobia. However IMO his completetly dishonest arguments are not only much worse, but were a product of his irrational belief in homophobia.

[keith123]

I can understand attacking Stu's use of logic, but I think it is going pretty far to suggest he is a bigot (at least based on the thread in question). The only quasi-bigotted thing he wrote was the word "inferior," which was in reference to types of relationships, not homosexuals themselves. Actually he wrote, "For what its worth, I have found homosexuals to be equal co-wokers and freinds." I am sure that wasn't "worth" much to most of you. Stu's opinions are actually pretty mild, and probably falls left of center if you polled all Americans (that is a guess). Not to say that the average American is right about this stuff.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is going pretty far to suggest he is a bigot

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you're looking hard enough.

[peritonlogon]

Bigoted is the right word. His 'logic' was identical to that used by people to deny women the rights of property and voting and to deny black people freedom, equal rights and equal opportunity. Just because someone comes up with a palatble rationale doesn't mean it isn't bigoted.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
His 'logic' was identical to that used by people to deny women the rights of property and voting and to deny black people freedom, equal rights and equal opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. White males felt that blacks and women were inferior as people to themselves. It doesn't sound like Stu was trying to say that homosexuals are inferior as people.

[HeavilyArmed]

Get over your silly ideas that might include free and open exchange of ideas here. This is a small fiefdom with strict rules. It hardly pays to engage in political discussion when you are confined by speach codes. Stick to poker. Politics here is dead.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Get over your silly ideas that might include free and open exchange of ideas here. This is a small fiefdom with strict rules. It hardly pays to engage in political discussion when you are confined by speach codes. Stick to poker. Politics here is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol you're a pretty funny guy.

[peritonlogon]

There were plenty of arguments in the case of both black people and women. At the get go, they were all about being inferior as people, but as things went on the arguments got softer. People would appeal to ideas of nature, defect, superiority and even murkier concepts. One of the last arguments for women not having the right to vote was that women were too noble, if you believe it, and to let them get involved in politcs would be to corrupt them, so they should stay home and bask in their own pristine virtue and goodness instead. Many of the arguments came back to defining natural as whatever the status quo was and deducing their prejudices from that (circular logic).

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to let this thread run for very long, so say your peace now.

[/ QUOTE ]


I strongly disagree with Stu's banning, with the locking of the thread he started, and most of all, with the over-arching 2p2 policy.

I could be particularly long-winded in my opposition, so I'll try to limit it to as few as words as possible:

The current 2p2 policy is absurdly subjective. I'm an adult (and so should everyone else who browses this site) and I don't need mods and admins deciding for me what's racist, or bigoted, and what I should or should not be exposed to; I like iron, VR, and Cola, but if I needed a net-nanny I'd download some parent control software. I think Stu is downright foolish, and I didn't need a mod to tell me that. I'm at least humble enough to concede mine shouldn't be the final say on the matter (but not quite humble enough to stop myself from expressing my indignation here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Onto more specifics of the policy:

"Furthermore, we have many young people here and do not have the means to stop and explain this stuff in the proper detail that it would require."

If 2p2 admins. really do believe many young people are here (lets say, for the sake of the argument, 'young' = under 18), then the admins should have a lot of ethical concerns outside of what these kids are being exposed to on the Politics forum.

If we're talking about "young" people who are over 18, then the pretentiousness and hubris of the 2p2 policy is beyond the pale. If Stu is posting bigoted material, or if some posters are anti-Semitic revisionist historians, then I’d like to see the mods/admins credentials -- why they should be esteemed as the objective and ultimate arbiters of what’s “dishonest” or “meant to sway minds for hatred”, outside of “they run the place”.

I expect that “we run the place, we’re going to decide this stuff” is the only answer to this question. That’s understandable. Since that’s the case, however, we should stop pretending this is at all a place for anything resembling legitimate debate. It's essentially the place for some amount of docile debate, limited by moderators' and admins' unavoidably subjective tastes and judgements.

/rant. Cue the "lolz shutup and stop whining, Stu was an obvious bigoted troll".

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
Get over your silly ideas that might include free and open exchange of ideas here. This is a small fiefdom with strict rules. It hardly pays to engage in political discussion when you are confined by speach codes. Stick to poker. Politics here is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allowing the place to be mod-free invites it to become a bastion of non-sensical excessive punctuation assertions which would render it as terrible as most internet boards. Not that I haven't seen some here, but it's pretty tame. But, I definitely wouldn't place restrictions on discussion of controversial topics where both sides are actually explaining their thought process. By 2+2's rules, if Stu should have been banned, it should have been for his litter of previous one-liners where all he said generally was "gay marriages were inferior, period". Zulu, I and some others tried to make him actually elaborate, rather than continue those one sentence borderline flames. In that OP, at least he tried to explain, despite the fact it reeked of bigotry.