Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 77 of 134 (449904)
01-19-2008 6:16 PM


NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
In Message 128 of the "Gay marriage and the law" thread, AdminPD declares the questioning of Nemesis Juggernaut's motives to be "off-topic."
Specifically:
This is not a debate about homosexuality itself.
This is not a debate about illegal actions not dealing with marriage.
And yet, there was no complaint when NJ let loose with his homophobic emesis. Only when somebody responded in kind was it suddenly decided that there was a problem.
But, this isn't about the double standard and the pathetic attempt to appear "fair" by retroactive administration (for an example, see Message 10 where NJ once again brings up incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, drug use, and addiction in equivocation to being gay and yet there is no admonition to him that these things are "off-topic.")
Instead, this is about the declaration of off-topic the attempt to reverse the issue: NJ's basic claim is that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because of the badness of same-sex relationships. This is, actually, a legal argument: By sanctioning a certain action, certain other actions that are not to be desired will come about. Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to regulate if not outright deny the original action.
If this is so, then it necessarily needs to be explained just what it is about the action in question that leads to it those undesired results that comparable actions don't. Why is it that NJ only seems to think about raping his infant son when he thinks of having sex with someone of his own sex? Why does he never consider raping his infant daughter when thinking of having sex with someone of the opposite sex?
In short, I am reframing the entire debate away from homosexuality and toward the legal justification NJ is proffering: Since we know that rape, incest, and pedophilia are a much larger problem among heterosexuals (both in terms of sheer numbers as well as relative numbers) and yet we still allow opposite-sex couples to get married, then why on earth would we deny it to same-sex couples?
There is a compelling state interest in preventing rape, incest, and pedophilia and if sanctioning the relationship between two adults leads to rape, incest, and pedophilia, then surely we need to rethink the sanctioning of heterosexual relationships since they are so much more likely to engage in such activity.
So since gays are much less likely than straights to engage in rape, incest, or pedophilia, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to encourage it? Shouldn't the law, which has an interest in preventing crime, recognize its duty to sanction same-sex marriage?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AdminPD, posted 01-19-2008 10:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 79 of 134 (449984)
01-20-2008 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AdminPD
01-19-2008 10:35 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
AdminPD responds to me:
quote:
Argue the position, not the person.
Tell that to NJ. He is the only one who ever brings up rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, murder, etc. when discussing sexuality. That is not arguing the position. Since he is the only one who ever does it, it is his responsibility to explain why he immediately jumps to visions of raping his infant son while blowing the family dog when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex.
How is my calling on him to justify his rhetoric "arguing the person" when his rhetoric is not?
Be specific: Are you saying it is allowable to say that gay people are incestuous, raping pedophiles? Need I remind you of NJ's reaction when he was informed that gay people are actually less likely to engage in molestation than straights?
Is it allowable for someone to say that black men want to rape white women? That is a clearly racist statement, wouldn't you say?
If we don't allow racism, why do we allow homophobia? If it is always inappropriate to call people who aren't white rapists, why is it acceptable to call people who aren't straight rapists?
And if it is OK to equate being gay with being a rapist, why is it not OK to reverse the claim and equate being straight with being a rapist?
Be specific.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AdminPD, posted 01-19-2008 10:35 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 3:20 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 85 by AdminPD, posted 01-20-2008 7:39 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 82 of 134 (449990)
01-20-2008 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by arachnophilia
01-20-2008 3:20 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
arachnophilia responds to me:
quote:
characterizing your opponent as fantasizing about raping babies and felating canines is the very definition of ad hominem.
Then why does NJ keep bringing it up? The thought never appears in any post until NJ decides to tell us what he thinks and apparently when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son.
But since there is no connection to sexual orientation and rape, incest, pedophilia, drug use, murder, etc., why is it that NJ keeps equating being gay with all of the above. What is it about the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex that makes him immediately envision raping his infant son?
If it's unacceptable when I do it, how is it of no concern when he does it?
Surely you're not saying that the problem is that I'm being graphic while he maintains the use of clinical terms...that this is just a question of semantics, are you? That when he equivocates gay people to rapists, we shouldn't be thinking of an actual act of rape? That when he equivocates gay people to pedophiles, we shouldn't think of an actual child being molested? That when he equates gay people to those who commit incest, we shouldn't think of people actually being exploited?
If it is inappropriate to apply the actual acts to him that he accuses gay people of promoting, then surely it is inappropriate to apply them to gay people.
Or are you also arguing that gay people are incestuous rapers of children?
quote:
two wrongs do not make a right.
I never said it did. But here's a hint: Three wrongs don't make a right, either.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 3:20 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 2:00 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 83 of 134 (449991)
01-20-2008 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
01-20-2008 4:14 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
Rahvin writes:
quote:
I agree that characterizing NJ as actually fantasizing about this stuff is too far
Ahem. I never said he liked it. I simply said that the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex makes him think about it.
I have directly asked him on multiple occasions if he is trying to tell us something. I don't rightly know what his private thoughts are. All I can go on are his public statements here.
And from those, it is apparent that NJ immediately envisions raping his infant son when he thinks about having sex with someone of his own sex.
It's very simple for him to prove us wrong: Create an argument that doesn't rely upon that image. Since he seem constitutionally (hah!) incapable of doing so, then it is a reasonable conclusion that he cannot separate the two.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2008 4:14 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by berberry, posted 01-20-2008 6:17 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 134 (450010)
01-20-2008 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by AdminPD
01-20-2008 7:39 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
AdminPD writes:
quote:
Whether you like what NJ wrote or not, he did not make it personal.
When NJ claims gay people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists, how is that not personal? There are no gay people on this board?
quote:
I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand the difference in the wording.
And I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand the problem.
quote:
If he had said that it would have been considered inappropriate and inflammatory, but that is not what he said.
Yes, he did. He said gay people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists. How is that not personal to those who are gay?
We seem to have the problem that we have with regard to people who kill. Eddie Izzard said it best:
You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death - lunch- death, death, death - afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower..."
So if you insult one person, claiming he is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist, then that's something horrible and cannot be accepted. But if you insult millions of people, claiming they are incestuous, pedophilic rapists....
..."Well done!"
I find it difficult to believe that your priorities are so warped that direct statements that insult an entire class of people are of no concern while turning those statements directly back upon the person who uttered them in the first place is somehow beyond the pale.
If it is inappropriate to wonder why NJ is incapable of discussing sexuality without bringing up fantasies of raping his infant son, then why does he get to claim that gay people wish to rape their infant children?
Do you truly not see that the problem is bringing up rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, drug use, murder, etc. in the first place? If you truly wished to ensure that there is no maligning of anybody, shouldn't you do something about the person who starts maligning others? Nobody ever brings up raping an infant child except NJ. So if we don't want to have to wonder where NJ gets this bizarre fantasy of his, shouldn't we stop him from bringing it up in the first place?
Three wrongs don't make a right, PD. If it's wrong when I do it, then it's wrong when he does it and it is wrong for you to call me on it but not him.
Or are you saying gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? I don't ask that for my health. I really want to know. Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists?
quote:
It is not our job to censor minority or offensive views
And yet, you do all the time. If I were to go on the board and say blacks are rapists, I'd be shut down in a heartbeat. Somehow, when the subject is gay people, nobody seems to mind. It's the same mindset that deems "nigger" and "cunt" and "spic" and "wop" and "kike" to be beyond the pale but "faggot" is somehow of no real concern since we want to "acknowledge that people have deep-seated issues regarding homosexuality."
quote:
but to make sure they are not presented in a manner contrary to the forum guidelines.
So it's OK to say that blacks are rapists. Good to know.
Here's a thought:
Do as Rahvin suggested and have a personal moratorium on NJ from posting on any thread dealing with sexuality. Since he ALWAYS brings up his claim that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, surely the solution is to remove the person causing the problem.
I swear, it's like dealing the idiots running schools who seem to think that the solution to the bullying problem is to punish the ones being bullied.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AdminPD, posted 01-20-2008 7:39 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by AdminPD, posted 01-20-2008 10:12 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 102 of 134 (450090)
01-20-2008 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by AdminPD
01-20-2008 10:12 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
AdminPD responds to me:
quote:
My job is to moderate according to the Forum Guidelines in an attempt to keep the threads on track and civil.
And declaring that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists is "civil"?
Once again, I ask you directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists?
If not, if you truly are concerned with maintaining the guidelines and keeping threads on track and civil, then you would stop the person who is being uncivil and throwing things off.
Since you don't in the case of NJ equated gays to incestuous, pedophilic rapists, one has to wonder if you don't agree. Therefore, I ask you directly for the third time:
Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't blink when someone makes that claim.
quote:
Based on the Forum Guidelines and my understanding of what the originator wanted for the thread, your comments were off topic.
The originator hasn't spoken and you haven't enforced any guideline at all. The last time this was brought up, you did the same thing directly against the wishes of the originator.
So once again, I ask directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't act when someone makes such a claim.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by AdminPD, posted 01-20-2008 10:12 AM AdminPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by AdminNWR, posted 01-20-2008 3:19 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 106 by AdminModulous, posted 01-20-2008 3:58 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 103 of 134 (450091)
01-20-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by jar
01-20-2008 1:05 PM


Re: Gay Issues Discussion Threads
jar writes:
quote:
We do have free speech. And IMHO it is far better to let the bigots have their say so that those reading the forum can see that they are bigots.
So why are we not allowed to call them out on their bigotry and turn it around back on them? Can what we say actually offend them? Do they really give us that much credit?
It's the double-standard, jar, that is the problem. NJ can call people incestuous, pedophilic rapists without comment but somehow to reflect that back upon him is unacceptable?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 01-20-2008 1:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 01-20-2008 3:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 108 of 134 (450331)
01-21-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by arachnophilia
01-20-2008 2:00 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
arachnophilia responds to me:
quote:
see, there you go again.
quote:
and again.
Yep. And until we get a ruling from the admins that it is ALWAYS unacceptable to make the blanket claim that anybody or any number of people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists, then I shall keep doing it.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is no problem with NJ declaring gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists, why is it a problem to turn that prejudice back around on him? He's the one who brought it up.
NJs argument is a variation of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading. Rush Limbaugh made quite a bit of hay declaring that all drug addicts should be thrown in jail.
And then he got caught doing drugs.
Suddenly, his tune changed. He couldn't explain why his drug addiction was different than that of those he said should be in jail. And thus, the way you get around his special pleading is to turn his argument back around on him. That isn't personal. It is merely specific. We choose Rush's specific circumstance because it is the closest to the issue at hand: Rush's declaration.
"Courage of your convictions," and all.
Now, I'm not saying that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist. I'm simply saying that he thinks about it an awful lot. NJ has made a lot of hay declaring gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists. But since he is the only person who ever deigns to think about raping one's infant child when considering the topic of sex between adults, it is not personal to ask him why. It is merely specific. NJ is the one that brought it up. Therefore, he needs to explain why it is that the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately made him think of raping his infant son.
If he cannot explain how he got there, if he cannot explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to incest, pedophilia, rape, drugs, murder, bestiality, etc., then he has no justification for his claim that homosexuality necessarily leads to it.
He's the one who brought it up. Why is it taboo to make him justify it for his own case?
quote:
NJ, nearest i can tell, is arguing that allowing homosexuality opens the door for other forms of sexual deviations that he feels are wrong.
But he can't explain why. Why does heterosexuality not lead to those things?
I am attempting to reframe the discussion. Rather than trying to force the justification be of gays, I am having NJ justify straights.
Apparently, that is so offensive that it cannot be allowed. It's OK to accuse the gay people here of being incestuous, pedophilic rapists, but heaven help you if you hint that perhaps the straights need to explain themselves.
quote:
but you're directly calling him a rapist and a pedophile.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when he thinks about having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son. That doesn't mean he actually does it. It simply means that he can't help but think about it. And the thought is so compelling that he feels the need to tell us about it. It is up to him to explain why.
Do honestly not understand the difference?
Hint: There is a festive clue in there about NJ's defense of his own argument. Can you figure out what it is? Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?
quote:
when you phrase it as an attack on your opponent, it is an ad hominem.
But it isn't about him personally. It's about his statement. He's the one who brought it up. Nobody was thinking of such things except him. Therefore, it is his responsibility to explain why the thought of sex with someone of the same sex made him immediately consider raping his infant son.
quote:
and he has said repeatedly that this is not what he's trying to do.
And we believe him why?
So what you're saying is that if I tell you repeatedly that I am not trying to say that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist, that'll be good enough for you? After all, I have never said he actually is. I have only said that when he thinks about having sex with someone of his own sex, his mind immediately starts envisioning raping his infant son. Again, that doesn't mean he actually goes out and does it. I have asked him if he's trying to tell us something, but I have never said he has gone out and done it.
Hint: There is a festive clue in there about NJ's defense of his own argument. Can you figure out what it is? Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?
quote:
you are rather basically misrepresenting his argument
Huh? Have you not read his argument? Did you not see his reaction when he learned that gays are actually less likely to molest children than straights?
Are you really that naive? OK: Guess I get to ask you the same question:
Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? I do not ask this for my health. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know your answer to that question. For if you do, it would explain a lot about your defense of NJ. If you don't, then we're back where we started with your inability to understand that if NJ's argument shall not be applied to him, then it necessarily means that it shall not be applied to anybody else, either, and he should stop making it. Since he seems to be incapable of controlling himself, since he seemingly cannot help but tell us all of his visions of raping his infant son when he thinks about sex with someone of the same sex, perhaps he should be told to have those thoughts somewhere else.
quote:
one of them is against the forum rules
And yet, NJ is still allowed to post. If it is against the forum rules, why is NJ still allowed to post? Since he ALWAYS brings up the vision of raping his infant son when he thinks of sex with someone of the same sex and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, why has nobody figured out that the solution is to stop him from joining in on such subjects?
Again, it's like the idiots in schools who seem to think that the solution to bullying is to punish the ones being bullied for fighting back.
quote:
yes, rrhain, everyone who expects you to behave yourself like an adult is a baby-raper.
Yes, arachnophilia, that's what I'm trying to say. You hit it spot on. Couldn't have nailed it any better. I'm amazed that you were able to read my mind so clearly.
Hint: I didn't really mean that. I know my words seemed to indicate that I did, but I didn't. Perhaps just because somebody says something, that doesn't mean they're telling the truth.
quote:
you know, it's rather hard to claim to have the moral high ground when you're content to sling mud down in the gutter with the worst of them.
Who said I was claiming the moral high ground? What I said I was doing was trying to make a point. Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?
Three wrongs don't make a right, arachnophilia. If it's wrong when I do it, then it's just as wrong when NJ does it and it is just as wrong to come down on me and not him.
You will notice that NJ is never questioned about why he seems to jump to raping his infant son when he thinks about having sex with someone of the same sex out of the blue. It is always and solely in response to his equation of gays to incestuous, pedophilic rapists. So if you think it is bad form to turn that argument back around on him, then the solution is to prevent the original argument from being brought up in the first place.
Since he ALWAYS brings up the vision of raping his infant son when he thinks of sex with someone of the same sex and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, why has nobody figured out that the solution is to stop him from joining in on such subjects?
quote:
just try to behave yourself and not attack other forum members.
I have not attacked NJ. I have simply pointed his own argument back against him. If it is personal to have his argument applied to him, then it is personal to have it applied to anybody else.
So why is NJ still allowed to make that personal argument?
If I tell you enough that I am not attacking NJ, will that be sufficient? That seems to be your standard: All I have to do is tell you I'm not and you'll buy it. So fine.
I'm not attacking NJ. I have never said he actually does rape his infant son. I've simply said that the thought of sex with someone of the same sex makes him think about it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 2:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2008 5:52 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 109 of 134 (450351)
01-21-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by arachnophilia
01-20-2008 2:05 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
arachnophilia writes:
quote:
and comes whining here
Excuse me? The moderators decree that any discussion of the situation must be done here and it is "whining" to do so?
Gee, arach...what does that make you? You responded to the whiner!
quote:
christianity has a very small definition of what is morally accepted sex.
And that's fine. The problem is not that NJ has a list. The problem is that he seems to think that everything on the list is the same and has no desire to justify that claim.
And apparently, while it is appropriate to declare gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists, it is inappropriate to turn that argument back around on him and ask why it is that he cannot help but think of raping his infant son whenever he thinks of sex with someone of the same sex.
quote:
perhaps the thread could argue against that position instead of merely attacking the person who feels that way.
But nobody has attacked NJ. I have never said that he actually IS an incestuous, pedophilic rapist. I've simply said that he thinks about it.
When I think of kidnapping, I also think of murder. That doesn't make me a murderer. It just means I think about it.
Now, I can justify why I do: When people kidnap people, they are often in a desperate state. And usually kidnapping requires the use of some sort of weapon to get the victim to come along. Given a desperate person with a weapon, the possibility of murder coming along for the ride goes right up. Now, I know that many kidnappers don't do it with the thought of killing their victim. And I would not be shocked to find that most kidnappings don't end up in murder (though my recollection is that if the victim is not retrieved quickly, the chances of them having been murdered skyrocket), but it is because we have all the elements of a murder present (weapon, person not thinking clearly) that when I think about kidnapping, I also start considering murder.
You will note, however, that the fact that I think about murder when I think about kidnapping does not mean I have ever committed or even contemplated committing either murder or kidnapping. But, it is clear that if I am constantly bringing up murder whenever the discussion of kidnapping comes up, I am going to have to explain myself as to why I can't get the image out of my head. After all, since not all kidnappings end in murder, there would seem to be at least some level of disconnect between the two.
Contrast this to, say, election fraud. When I think of election fraud, I don't think about murder. There is nothing inherent in the stealing of votes, stuffing of ballot boxes, reprogramming of voting machines, etc. that has the prerequisites of murder. If I'm going to equate election fraud to murder, I'm going to have to explain why it is that I constantly think of murder whenever I consider election fraud.
So far, NJ has yet to explain why it is that whenever he thinks about sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately thinks about raping his infant son. That doesn't mean he has ever done so or has any intentions of doing so. It simply means that he has to explain why he cannot separate the two. Why does he immediately envision raping his infant son whenever the subject of sex with someone of the same sex crosses his mind? Nobody else brought it up. Nobody else even hinted at it. It sprung specifically from his thoughts, so it is his burden to explain himself.
That isn't personal. That's specific. There's a difference.
quote:
but hate-speech in return is not the answer.
So why is "hate-speech" in the first allowed?
If it's "hate-speech" to turn NJ's argument around on him, isn't it "hate-speech" for him to bring it forth in the first place?
Remember: NJ is the one who brings it up. We wouldn't be talking about incestuous, pedophilic rapists if it weren't for NJ. Therefore, if it is problematic to deal with the subject of incestuous, pedophilic rapists, shouldn't we concentrate our attentions on the person who can't help but to bring the subject up?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 2:05 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 110 of 134 (450358)
01-21-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by AdminNWR
01-20-2008 3:19 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
AdminNWR responds to me:
quote:
This is not a debate thread. Your question is off-topic for this thread.
Inquiring into the thought processes of the administrators that they use to justify their administrative responses is not on-topic in a thread about the thought processes of the administrators that they use to justify their administrative responses? Just what do you think is the point of this thread? If we can't ask the admins to justify their administrative actions here, where do we do it?
I do not seek to ask them to justify why they do or do not think that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists. I simply seek to find out if they do or do not. It's a simple, yes-or-no question. Is it really so difficult to answer?
If they do, then that would explain why they don't respond to NJ's equation of being gay with being an incestuous, pedophilic rapist. Since they do not see a problem, it is futile to try and spur them into action.
If they don't, then one has to wonder why they don't respond to NJ's equation of being gay with being an incestuous, pedophilic rapist. Since it would seem to be clear that since NJ's claim ALWAYS derails the thread, the simplest solution would be to shut it down when it is brought forth.
I am asking why they are perpetuating a double standard. One of the ways of doing that is to see if they actually don't have a problem with the statements being made. If they don't, then it is clear that they would not see a double standard. But if they do have a problem, then they need to explain why they are perpetuating a double standard. It doesn't matter what the subject is that is the basis for the double standard. The problem is specifically the double standard.
If they don't see it, then that explains why they don't do anything about it.
How am I supposed to determine if they don't see it if I don't ask them about it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by AdminNWR, posted 01-20-2008 3:19 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AdminNWR, posted 01-21-2008 5:41 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 111 of 134 (450359)
01-21-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jar
01-20-2008 3:19 PM


Re: Gay Issues Discussion Threads
jar responds to me:
quote:
Yawn.
Then why did you bother to respond in the first place, jar. You obviously care that much. If it really is of no interest to you, then step back. Surely you aren't saying that I'm hurting NJ's pwecious, widdle feewings are you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 01-20-2008 3:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 01-21-2008 5:31 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 113 of 134 (450368)
01-21-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by AdminModulous
01-20-2008 3:58 PM


AdminModulous responds to me:
quote:
quote:
And declaring that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists is "civil"?
No, it isn't.
Then why aren't you doing anything about it? Has it not occured to you that this entire problem is predicated upon NJ's continual inability to discuss the issue at hand? Have you not noticed that it is always NJ who brings up the subject of incest, pedophilia, rape, murder, bestiality, etc.? Have you not noticed that it ALWAYS derails the thread when he does so?
So why are you picking on the people who are fighting back? Shouldn't you be focusing your attention on the person who brings it up in the first place?
This problem will vanish if you simply followed your own guidelines and stopped the bigot from putting forth his vomit.
quote:
If I thought that any member was declaring gays to be rapists or paedophiles or incestuous, I'd take immediate action.
And did you not see his reaction when he was informed that gay people are actually less likely to molest children than straights?
quote:
did someone call gays rapists?
And what makes you think he didn't? Be specific. How does equating being gay to being an incestuous, pedophilic rapist not calling gays rapists? How does saying that sanctioning homosexuality is equivalent to sanctioning rape not equating being gay with being a rapist? How does equating two terms not mean that one is the other?
It'd be very simple for NJ to prove that he doesn't equate the two: Craft an argument that doesn't equate the two. But he never does so. Whenever the subject of sex with someone of the same sex comes up, he immediately jumps to the question of raping his infant son. How the hell did he get there?
quote:
However, I think it important to clarify that we agree on the former issue.
No, AdminModulous, we apparently don't agree on it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AdminModulous, posted 01-20-2008 3:58 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by AdminModulous, posted 01-21-2008 6:00 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 117 of 134 (450653)
01-23-2008 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by AdminNWR
01-21-2008 5:41 PM


Re: Rrhain takes a 24 hour break
AdminNWR responds to me:
quote:
That is not what you were doing in Message 103 to which I had replied.
Here is my entire text of Message 103:
So why are we not allowed to call them out on their bigotry and turn it around back on them? Can what we say actually offend them? Do they really give us that much credit?
It's the double-standard, jar, that is the problem. NJ can call people incestuous, pedophilic rapists without comment but somehow to reflect that back upon him is unacceptable?
Where am I doing anything but question the admins' double standard? I am certainly not arguing for or against gays, rapists, pedophiles, commiters of incest, etc. I am simply wondering why it is that the admins let those who claim gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists to slide while those who call them on it get attacked as "violating forum guidelines."
Why is NJ still allowed to post, AdminNWR? Be specific.
Perhaps you meant Message 102. Here is my complete text there:
And declaring that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists is "civil"?
Once again, I ask you directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists?
If not, if you truly are concerned with maintaining the guidelines and keeping threads on track and civil, then you would stop the person who is being uncivil and throwing things off.
Since you don't in the case of NJ equated gays to incestuous, pedophilic rapists, one has to wonder if you don't agree. Therefore, I ask you directly for the third time:
Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't blink when someone makes that claim.
...
The originator hasn't spoken and you haven't enforced any guideline at all. The last time this was brought up, you did the same thing directly against the wishes of the originator.
So once again, I ask directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't act when someone makes such a claim.
Where am I trying to debate the merits of NJ's claims that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? Be specific.
Instead, I am asking why NJ's claims are considered "civil" since they never get shut down.
Be specific. If equating being gay with being an incestuous, pedophilic rapist is "civil," why is it beyond the pale to wonder why NJ constantly thinks of raping his infant son when he considers sex with someone of his one sex?
If this thread isn't here to allow the users to question the admins' judgements, to get them to open up and explicitly describe why they are doing what they are doing, then where do we do it?
Or are you saying that this entire thread is nothing but a sham? To make it look like the users might have some say in this board but that it's just a ruse to keep us happy: The reality is that the admins are never to be questioned?
How might a user convince an admin that the admin screwed up if "debating" is not allowed? Should we declare a "Great Debate" thread between the user and the admin? Would that be the better place for it?
Justify yourself, NWR. Why are you here? How do you contribute? Why does your presence make things better?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AdminNWR, posted 01-21-2008 5:41 PM AdminNWR has seen this message but not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 118 of 134 (450655)
01-23-2008 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by AdminModulous
01-21-2008 6:00 PM


AdminModulous responds to me:
quote:
Yes, we do agree that if someone was to declare gays are incestuous or paedophiles then action should be taken.
Apparently not or you would shut NJ down. Again, he ALWAYS brings up this fantasy of raping his infant son and it ALWAYS derails the thread and yet somehow, he is still allowed to post. Has it not occurred to you that this problem would never happen again if you just did your job and shut such thread-wrecking comments down at the source?
quote:
If you really want my answer to the questions you put forward, simply refer to Thread General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 in Forum Suggestions and Questions where most, if not all of them are addressed.
You seem to forget that I was part of that thread and contrary to your claim, not a single point was addressed. Instead, you just stuck your fingers in your ears and sang la-la-la, can't hear you!
It seems we've got a repeat performance. Since NJ ALWAYS makes this bizarre claim about raping his infant son and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, why are you punishing those that fight back?
Shouldn't you be paying attention to the bully?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by AdminModulous, posted 01-21-2008 6:00 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-23-2008 3:08 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 123 by AdminModulous, posted 01-23-2008 8:21 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 120 of 134 (450659)
01-23-2008 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Adminnemooseus
01-23-2008 3:08 AM


Are you that lazy?
Adminnemooseus responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Again, he ALWAYS brings up this fantasy of raping his infant son and it ALWAYS derails the thread and yet somehow, he is still allowed to post.
It is certainly helpful if you would supply link(s) to such things. I certainly don't feel like spending a lot of time searching for such.
You're kidding, right? You don't read your own board?
In Message 3 of the "Gay marriage and the law" thread...MESSAGE 3!...he starts right in:
Anyone that makes that argument is making an incredibly specious one, IMO. What I believe is that it does is open the floodgates to more degradation.
Yes, yes...not quite there, but we know what's coming. "Degradation"? What on earth could he possibly mean by that? Why here it is: Just a few paragraphs later:
After this comes will be the next battlefront -- pedophilia.
Huh? Pedophilia? Where did that come from? Why does homosexuality lead to pedophilia whereas heterosexuality does not? We'll never know because NJ will never say. But, he's not done:
If I am wrong, I will eat my words. In the next 15-20 years, you will see a major battle being fought for pedophile rights. Its already at the doorstep, under the ubiquitous guise of love.
Once again, the equation of homosexuality to pedophilia. No explanation as to why heterosexuality doesn't do this...only homosexuality. And still he's not done:
Now I ask the reader: Given that I have made both pro and con points about homosexual marriage, can any of you, even if you lean towards homosexual marriage, at least understand where I am coming from? Have you ever honestly considered the repercussions for allowing it?
Huh? How does being gay lead to the molestation of children? What on earth does being gay have to do with pedophilia? And what are these "repercussions"? Why is it that NJ never seems to consider these "repercussions" when considering heterosexuality? Why is it only thinking of having sex with members of the same sex that causes it to happen?
Again, this is in [I][B]MESSAGE 3![/i][/b] The thread hasn't even started. NJ hasn't made any other posts. The very first thing he does is equate being gay to molesting children.
Nator then tries to avoid the direct statement, but NJ won't let it go. In his second post in the thread, Message 9, he lets loose with this:
Can you think of any immediate problems with polygamy? Incest?
Huh? How did polygamy and incest enter into it? Nator was talking about encouraging people to get married so that they would be in a stable relationship and NJ immediately jumps to polygamy and incest as if that were what homosexuality causes. No explanation as to why being gay leads to this whereas being straight does not. It's just assumed. Being gay is equivalent to polygamy and incest. Nobody else brought it up. Why did NJ?
And then look at Message 10 where NJ responds to subbie who also avoided all questions of NJ's excremental introduction of molestation:
Does the same apply to incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, regulating drugs, regulating cigarettes and alcohol, etc, etc? Your argument is based upon individual desire, without examining the consequences. In your mind, the adage, "If it feels good, do it," should be the defining principle to look up to.
That's his entire post. We've now wandered so far away from marriage and the sex of the participants that it's ridiculous. Prostitution? Bestiality? Drugs? What on earth does any of this have to do with the topic? Subbie had to literally scream at NJ to stop.
And then there's Message 13 where NJ decides to post a picture of some scantily clad men in body paint from what we can only assume is a Pride parade, along with this quote:
Can you feel the pride?
While the picture was cut out by the admins, none of the rest of the post was. Let's see what NJ said that led up to that need to demonize gay people:
Granny Magda was responding to NJ's claim that if we accept homosexuality, then we will end up accepting pedophilia by pointing out that Denmark and the Netherlands have had same-sex marriage for years and yet, "Neither state shows any inclination to legalise paedophilia." What does NJ say to this:
That's fantastically hilarious, if not totally ironic, that you mention it because not even one month ago, I just busted 4 out of 5 Danish sailors with child pornography.
Now, what Danish sailors were doing in San Pedro, we won't ask because the problem is that NJ's response has nothing to do with Granny Magda's statement. That there are people who break the law does not mean there is any pressure to change the law. So why would NJ respond in such a way? Perhaps because he has equated being gay with being a child molester? That the two are inexorably linked? No, that's just idle speculation. We can't know what NJ is thinking.
Ah, but Granny Magda has anticipated that and directly states that "the two topics are unrelated." But how does NJ respond to that?
No, there is a very special place in my heart for child molestors. If walking the plank were still a legal practice, I might assume it too light a punishment.
But I know what you mean...
Can you feel the pride?
And here we have it...the direct connection of being a child molester to being gay. And while AdminPD had the sense to know that something was up, somehow he managed to completely miss the important part. Instead, he was distracted by the shiny object.
And that's just on the first page, Minnemooseus, friend. Four posts, four equations of being gay to escalating examples of exploitation and violence. One with a not-so-subtle hint of him doing the violence, himself. And speaking of violence, in his very next post (Message 28) he equates being gay to spousal abuse:
If they are irrelevant in establishing a baseline, then spousal abuse is also irrelevant.
A "baseline"? A baseline of what? How does being gay have anything to do with beating your spouse? In a way that being straight does not? But he's not done. In response to nator's discussion of monogamy and its relation to marriage (specifically that it is harder to be monogamous outside of marriage than in it):
I do agree, but you are asking me to exonerate a greater sin out of a lesser one.
"Greater sin"? So now being gay is worse? But he's not done:
Then pedophilia is a trait that cannot be stopped. Its innate. If it that is so, then we can't very well ask them to stop what is normal, can we? You can't stop rapists because they are simply following their instincts. Monkeys don't ask for permission, especially the alpha male.
So here we go again with the pedophilia, rape, and bestiality. What does any of this have to do with being gay compared to being straight? Since straight people engage in all of those activities with much more frequency than gay people, why does NJ focus on the people who don't do it as if they were the cause? But he still not finished:
That's like saying adulterers have been repressed and persecuted. That's like saying pedophiles have been repressed and persecuted. That's like saying rapists have been repressed and persecuted.
Do you not see? Being gay is the same as being an adulterer, a pedophile, a rapist.
And finally, [I][B]FINALLY[/i][/b], we get to a post of NJ's that doesn't mention pedophilia, rape, incest, bestiality, pornography, drugs, etc. Message 30. Ah, but NJ is being subtle here:
Try not to forget for a moment that it is homosexuality infringing on every one else to conform to their ideas, not the other way around.
No justification is forthcoming for this pronouncement. But given everything he has said before, it is clear that NJ is saying that being gay will cause the destruction of society by unleashing pedophilia, rape, incest, bestiality, pornography, drugs, etc. The fact that he does not use those words in this post is irrelevant. A post does not exist in a vacuum. It must be placed within the context of all the other posts by that author within that thread and quite possibly in other threads.
And that's just two pages! Do you really want me to go through every single post of NJ's in this single thread? So far, he hasn't been able to get away from his constant need to tell of his thoughts of raping his infant son when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex. And none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread. Remember, subbie had to [I][B]SCREAM[/i][/b] at NJ to stop.
Do you bother to pay attention to your own board? I know, it's big. But when there is a clear controversy going on in one of the threads, are you seriously claiming that you cannot be bothered to look it up on your own? Are you that lazy?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-23-2008 3:08 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-23-2008 6:45 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 122 by cavediver, posted 01-23-2008 7:13 AM Rrhain has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024