Striving for Equality

[Redde]

Just wondering: Where do we draw the line on what's acceptable and what isn't, and who's the one deciding that? What makes homosexuality any more right than zoophilia, for instance?

Homosexuality is the relationship between two consenting human beings

So can be pedophilia.

 

[Garren]

No, because pedophilia involves minors that aren't of the age of consent...

Stop using the old slippery slope argument. Bulbagarden is obviously not going to support bestiality or pedophilia because of this. :/

 

[Magnus Newman]

@ Bikini Miltank
Okay, thank you for clarifying things in my stead.
By "aggressive posts" and "hatred" I meant "Posts directly insulting members of religion X". Sometimes there are people who do it in a somewhat subtle yet hateful way.
I'm totally okay with debates as long as politeness and respect are present.

 

[Redde]

No, because pedophilia involves minors that aren't of the age of consent...

What if a 40-50 year old person makes out with a 18 year old teen? Both people are the age of consent in this case.

Again, who's the one deciding what's acceptable and what isn't and based on what? To go back to the argument you gave for homosexuality being alright and zoophilia being wrong, what makes making out with someone who doesn't belong to the opposite gender any more alright than making out with a non-human and why?

 

[Garren]

Well, this is a private forum owned by Archaic and his staff members so, in this case, they are allowed to decide ultimately what's acceptable and what is not.

But really, kissing another human being and making out with a goat is obviously different. I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate (joining today and coming directly to this thread makes me think that), or if you're truly homophobic, but either way I don't really know what else to say to you since you're diving into the most base of anti-gay arguments out there, the bestiality-comparison routine.

What if a 40-50 year old person makes out with a 18 year old teen? Both people are the age of consent in this case.

That's...not pedophilia then. So...uh...what's your point.

 

[SaintDynamite]

My interpretation is that no one is saying that you can't be homophobic ever, but Archaic and the staff are simply saying that you can't be homophobic on BMGF.

Ultimately, no one can tell you what to think or believe. The staff are just making sure that this forum is not a platform for something they obviously believe is wrong. And kudos to them.

 

[Redde]

Well, this is a private forum owned by Archaic and his staff members so, in this case, they are allowed to decide ultimately what's acceptable and what is not.

But really, kissing another human being and making out with a goat is obviously different. I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate (joining today and coming directly to this thread makes me think that), or if you're truly homophobic, but either way I don't really know what else to say to you since you're diving into the most base of anti-gay arguments out there, the bestiality-comparison routine.

I'm just trying to point out that these kinds of things boil down to personal beliefs. I actually agree the staff about that people shouldn't be allowed to attack, harass or undermine gays, as that's trying to push personal beliefs down other people's throats (that homosexuality is wrong). But stating that people expressing their different beliefs (note that by this, I don't mean attacking or undermining people for being homosexual) is unacceptable is hypocritical, as that's pushing your beliefs down others' throats, too.

What if a 40-50 year old person makes out with a 18 year old teen? Both people are the age of consent in this case.

That's...not pedophilia then. So...uh...what's your point.

Most people would consider it pedophilia, or at least wrong.

Edit:

My interpretation is that no one is saying that you can't be homophobic ever, but Archaic and the staff are simply saying that you can't be homophobic on BMGF.

Ultimately, no one can tell you what to think or believe. The staff are just making sure that this forum is not a platform for something they obviously believe is wrong. And kudos to them.

Archaic stated this:

1. "Debate" of LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning) issues.
The only forum where we will tolerate negative views of LGBTQ people (and make no mistake, they will be barely tolerated, not accepted) will be in appropriate discussions in Nicoleta's Bus. Posting that sort of view anywhere else will likely result in significant infractions, depending on the circumstances.

Yes, he stated that debate regarding LGBTQ will be tolerated in Nicoleta's Bus. But the bolded text is the part I take issue with, as it's hypocritically stating "Having a different personal belief from us is unacceptable". If you're going to allow people to debate about LGBTQ, then let people debate; don't go imposing double standards and favoring one side. If it's a debate, then both sides of the argument (the positive and negative views) should be accepted.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

And on that note, this isn't the place for such a debate. So why are people here arguing about the differences between homosexuality and zoophilia? Seems like a debate to me, and a pretty stupid one at that.

So quit it.

 

[Redde]

And on that note, this isn't the place for such a debate. So why are people here arguing about the differences between homosexuality and zoophilia? Seems like a debate to me, and a pretty stupid one at that.

So quit it.

Not to worry. Not more debate about that is needed, as I was already able to get to the point I was trying to get to.

 

[IvySnivy]

I'm just trying to point out that these kinds of things boil down to personal beliefs. I actually agree the staff about that people shouldn't be allowed to attack, harass or undermine gays, as that's trying to push personal beliefs down other people's throats (that homosexuality is wrong). But stating that people expressing their different beliefs (note that by this, I don't mean attacking or undermining people for being homosexual) is unacceptable is hypocritical, since that's pushing your beliefs down others' throats too.

Actually, if you look at it from an empirical point of view, it becomes clear that certain opinions are morally indefensible despite being personal beliefs. Let's take racism and sexism as an example. A person could be misogynistic, and yes, it would be their opinion. However, misogyny is a view that causes suffering or has great potential to cause suffering - whereas equality among the sexes causes happiness or great potential for happiness. Therefore it is clear that misogyny is the "incorrect" view.

I guess basically what I'm saying is that opinions can be proven wrong; they are not all of equal value. At least, if you use happiness as a measure of what is "correct".

EDIT:

And on that note, this isn't the place for such a debate. So why are people here arguing about the differences between homosexuality and zoophilia? Seems like a debate to me, and a pretty stupid one at that.

So quit it.

Got it; sorry about that.

 

[The Outrage]

Okay, this is good and all.
But what about intolerance towards religion ? How can it be okay when people write aggressive posts about religion ? I've seen this more than once. Religiophobia should be included along with other forms of hatred.

That's a separate issue that I wholeheartedly support and should be protected.

However, what shouldn't be protected is the use of religion to justify hate-speeches.

Take Christianity. Jesus surrounded himself with tax collectors and prostitutes--the biggest sinners in bible times, but he did not condemn them. It's perfectly possible to disagree with a lifestyle while at the same not inciting hate-speeches--and even to disagree with violent behaviours and attitudes others hold.

It's difficult, yes, but its possible.

 

[DerMißingno]

+1 lawful good for Bulbagarden staff. You're getting there, guys. =)

 

[Satoshi-chan]

Okay, this is good and all.
But what about intolerance towards religion ? How can it be okay when people write aggressive posts about religion ? I've seen this more than once. Religiophobia should be included along with other forms of hatred.

So, we're supposed to keep our mouths shut whenever we disagree with churches such as the Westboro Baptist Church, or we are supposed to just quietly accept Jim Jones and the group suicide that he staged, sing praises for the Ku Klux Klan, or speak nothing but good about Al Qaeda because to do otherwise would be intolerant towards religion? If a religious organization or group promotes something horrible (and some do), I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be criticized.

Unlike a person's sex, race, or sexual orientation, the religion that you believe in is a choice. As a child, a person may be forced to go to a church, but if a church preaches hatred, it is their choice to follow it and regurgitate it in public. As an adult, someone can say "this church is preaching nothing but hatred," and can make the effort to switch to another church that doesn't preach hatred. On the other hand, changing sex is expensive and not perfect. Changing race is impossible. Changing sexual orientation is something some groups feel is possible, but many others feel is something that could damage a person more than it would "help."

 

[Fig]

Religions aren't quite the same as gender orientation when it comes to discrimination.

That doesn't mean religious discrimination doesn't exist; and it doesn't mean religious discrimination is acceptable. But not all attacks on a church is religious discrimination.

Religious discrimination, however, is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Vhazhiphor]

Actually, if you look at it from an empirical point of view, it becomes clear that certain opinions are morally indefensible despite being personal beliefs. Let's take racism and sexism as an example. A person could be misogynistic, and yes, it would be their opinion. However, misogyny is a view that causes suffering or has great potential to cause suffering - whereas equality among the sexes causes happiness or great potential for happiness. Therefore it is clear that misogyny is the "incorrect" view.

I guess basically what I'm saying is that opinions can be proven wrong; they are not all of equal value.

Firstly, while I agree that hateful actions towards other people, in any circumstance and for any reason, should not be condoned, and thus agree with the spirit of these new rules, I have to take issue with this kind of rationale. Because yes, some people do have the "wrong" opinion (I would argue that if something can be proven to be wrong or right it is then a fact, and not an opinion, but still. Let's call it, the opinion closest or furthest to the truth). But people have the right to be wrong. Especially because nobody believes that they are wrong. Show me one person that holds an opinion they think is not right, and I'll show you a crazy person.

But people have the right to be wrong. And instead of censorship and telling them "you're just wrong so shut up and leave", I believe it is the duty of those who have the opinion closest to the truth to argue in favor of their own stance, and to explain to these such people -on any topic, not just concerning hatred of the LGBTQ community- why and how they are mistaken, in the appropriate forums (e.g. Serious Business). I, for one, believe that debate and discussion should be a tool to foment intellectual growth. Because if you just tell someone that they don't have the right to hold an unacceptable opinion, I only have one word for you - crimethink.

So, I'll say it again - I agree, wholeheartedly, with the spirit of the rules. But perhaps disagree a bit with the wording, and/or actual implementation thereof.

 

[Italy-kun]

However, in my personal experience, homophobia stems from the Bible. People read the Bible, go to church, and are taught that homosexuality is wrong. As another BMGf user (who shall remain anonymous) put it "The homophobia seemingly coming from the Bible actually comes from the corrupt men who teach from it." This is also true. But at the end of the day, that corrupted teaching is part of who they are, just as homosexuality is simply part of who someone is. You can argue that homosexuality isn't a choice (PROTIP: it isn't) and that homophobia is, but let me ask you this. If a child was forced into attending church by their parents in their most impressionable years, is that a choice? No.

Once you're an adult, (or really even before) you can choose not to believe what you learned in church, as my parents did. That, and the same can be said for the hatred of people of African descent since the beginning of colonialism. Children in the early 1800s were taught that keeping slaves was okay because the slaves were black, and somehow lower-class just for that reason. (Fun fact: Those same children freed the slaves as adults.) The Bible says basically that sans the slave part, if I remember correctly. Yet you take huge offense to this rule when I'm pretty sure you wouldn't if it dealt with race. I just don't see the logic.

 

[pastafari]

congrats BGF staff. This has renewed my faith in mankind

 

[IvySnivy]

But people have the right to be wrong. And instead of censorship and telling them "you're just wrong so shut up and leave", I believe it is the duty of those who have the opinion closest to the truth to argue in favor of their own stance, and to explain to these such people -on any topic, not just concerning hatred of the LGBTQ community- why and how they are mistaken, in the appropriate forums (e.g. Serious Business). I, for one, believe that debate and discussion should be a tool to foment intellectual growth. Because if you just tell someone that they don't have the right to hold an unacceptable opinion, I only have one word for you - crimethink.

So, I'll say it again - I agree, wholeheartedly, with the spirit of the rules. But perhaps disagree a bit with the wording, and/or actual implementation thereof.

Ahh - perhaps I should have explained myself better. I think people should be free to think whatever they want. Debate and discussion absolutely should be used to forment intellectual growth, and of course it's important to engage in it when it comes to issues like this.

After all, exactly what causes happiness and what doesn't is highly debatable. But I do think that certain courses of action are better ones to take then others; discovering exactly what those courses of action might be is the purpose of that way of thinking. It's meant to encourage productive debate between opposing sides, not stifle it.

I definitely agree that explaining your own position as best and as respectfully as you can would be preferable to censorship.

 

[MaximumMask]

After so many years watching Bulbapedia, at least I needed to register to say thank you for being so fair. So thank you again.

 

[Fig]

ATTENTION

As a general reminder, this is NOT a Nicoleta's Bus thread. This means per the new policy, negative opinions of homosexuality don't belong in this thread.