Posts by bluemason3

fadedmason6 said:It’s like we're being treated as second-class citizens here. Your hate speech is pretty much underlined. 🙄

fadedmason6 said:Grouping pedophilia and homosexuality together is just nonsense. It’s offensive, plain and simple.

fadedmason6 said:Yeah, you could argue that homosexuality is just as much of a disorder as pedophilia. I've seen it all.

It looks like I missed the mark there. It's just another case of subjective bias kicking in because I'm clearly too close to the subject. I lumped them together because, historically and sociologically speaking, social dynamics toward them have shifted significantly. Besides, our perspectives are usually driven by shifting social norms and taboos rather than pure logic or sound arguments.

There’s nothing controversial or offensive here, let alone any hate speech. It’s just plain, undeniable facts.

Look, what am I supposed to do? If someone mentions anything related to being gay, people immediately start throwing emojis around like they’re celebrating, while others scream "hate speech" at the slightest provocation. It isn't hate speech, nor is it an expression of love. Those labels don't even apply here. This is just a straightforward, reasoned discussion about the facts, without trying to play judge and jury on what's right or wrong.

Sure, but it’s a pretty loaded term that can be slapped onto just about anything.

Look, I never claimed that pedophiles are mostly gay—I know how people usually try to spin it, but that’s a completely different story. Even if someone holds those views, I don't think we should just delete them. That’s why we have debates. If someone thinks like that, you should try to talk sense into them with actual arguments. If they're too stubborn to listen to even the most obvious facts, at least someone else might learn something by reading the discussion. Besides, we've had threads on psychology or religion involving similar "arguments" before without them being wiped out, so I'm not sure you can strictly call that hate speech. Think about it: how many people claim religious groups, political parties, or even secret governments and aliens are to blame for everything? Should all of that be deleted too? If we do that, what's left to talk about? Where do we draw the line on censorship before "hate speech" just becomes a label for any opinion we happen to dislike?

But again, that wasn't even my point.

Sam Green73 said:How did you get from my point to this?
Maybe?
A legal human inclination = roleplay in sex.
Something legally and culturally unacceptable = rape.

If you think they're the same, you missed my point entirely.
If not, I’d love to hear your reasoning.

One thing is illegal, the other is legal, but it makes perfect sense to ask if the underlying motive or desire is the same (after all, someone wouldn't roleplay a scenario if the concept didn't appeal to them, right?). Isn't that comparison valid when discussing rape versus BDSM? Why is comparing two activities considered hate speech just because one is legal and the other isn't? Legality is based on completely different criteria—in our case, whether someone's freedom is being violated—not on how similar or different the impulses driving the behavior might be. How does linking that to hate speech work?

Is it hate speech to compare alcoholism to an addiction to an illegal substance? Or to gambling? Does hate speech then depend on whether gambling happens to be legal in a specific country?

I don't see how this has anything to do with hate speech, nor with examining the psychological, biological, or social mechanisms behind a phenomenon or comparing them.

Sam Green73 said:Equating a legal human preference with something that is legally and culturally unacceptable could be interpreted as hate speech.

So, I’m essentially banned from discussing whether the dominant partner in a BDSM relationship—one who enjoys roleplaying scenarios to satisfy specific desires—shares psychological traits with an actual criminal, simply because it isn't a literal crime? Is that where we draw the line on hate speech?

Does this mean we have to dodge every sensitive topic entirely? Are we deciding that how an argument makes a person or a group feel is more important than whether it is actually true, logical, or backed by science?

By those "clear and objective" standards, you could probably label almost anything as hate speech. If someone pointed out that Coca-Cola isn't particularly healthy or that certain fast-food pizzas only exist because of massive marketing budgets, they might accidentally stumble into enough "hate speech" to outweigh my entire point.

You can try to justify any decision using that logic, but I wouldn't say it holds much water.

I need a drawing 😍

Maybe this debate should have been steered in a different direction much sooner 😉

And honestly, it’s two-faced. You’ve got certain religious types who see the devil in every single rock song, demanding we scrub any topic that doesn't align with their specific church doctrines. Using "two-faced" here isn't just some vague, floating term—it's a direct observation. It's not as poorly defined as people claim.
I guess I'll just keep mourning and complaining until someone gives me a coherent answer 🙂

🤣Edit: That is, if I don't get banned first

shadoworca3 said:Look, you’re equating pedophilia with homosexuality, which isn't legal here. We play by the rules of the law. 🙄

It sounds like equating them is what's actually against the law.

Obviously, those two things aren't legally the same. I explained my reasoning in my posts—it’s about protecting minors, not because I think pedophilia is inherently a different kind of disorder than things that aren't criminalized. What's the distinction between a rapist and someone practicing rough BDSM involving roleplay? In the first case, there's no consent and freedom is violated, which is always the case with pedophilia due to age. In the second, it's not a crime because it's a consensual "game" between adults, even if the impulse feels similar. Similarly, a pedophile having a relationship with an adult dressed as a student isn't breaking any laws.
That's just pivoting back to the subject matter rather than discussing why my posts were deleted. Is what I wrote illegal? No. 🙂

None of that has anything to do with my actual posts.

Nothing I wrote broke the law.

Nothing I wrote broke the forum rules, either. It can't be off-topic since there are plenty of other unmoderated posts following the same logic with views that clearly don't bother the mods.

It isn't hate speech, unless you believe that seeing some hidden agenda in someone—which I claim doesn't exist in me, but people see reptiles running global politics—is somehow a crime.

The argument that I'm being "annoying" is also a stretch, simply because I dare to disagree.

On the other hand, we never get a valid reason. Every time, the conversation shifts from the moderation itself to the content of the discussion. Instead of justifying deletions based on forum rules, they just pivot to saying we don't like what was written.

So, what's the real reason for the deletions?

Don't treat me like an idiot. If there is a legitimate justification, give me a specific reason and quote my post. If you truly believe it's off-topic, hate speech, or illegal, let's stick to that and go through the quotes to see if it actually exists.

You're just throwing out vague excuses without any substance, because there really isn't any. Posts are being deleted in the heat of the moment due to personal disagreements. It's pretty obvious. 😉

Am I being difficult just because I disagree?

Either I’ve actually broken some forum rules, or my posts were unfairly deleted simply because the mods couldn't stomach my take. What kind of mental gymnastics is that?

If you claim a specific law exists, surely it shouldn't be that hard to find? It’s possible, sure, but the idea of a law stating that equating pedophilia with homosexuality—which was basically the subtext of those posts—carries a two-year prison sentence sounds ridiculous. I can already see the undercover moral police lurking in local bars, waiting for someone to say, "well, they're all the same," just so they can swoop in for a verbal offense. 😁
It's also funny how all those loudmouth pundits who publicly make those same connections are still walking free. 😁

Honestly, I'm pretty sure a law like that doesn't even exist. 🤔

So now I'm the one being "difficult," but isn't this just a way to dodge the argument? Is the goal here to see who gives up first rather than determining who's actually right?

If the previous posts weren't particularly obsessed with scientific perspectives, why are these specific ones causing such a stir?

Can you actually quote that law for me? 🤔

Look, deleting posts isn't the issue here. It just keeps a debate going that really belongs in its own thread. Honestly, either move everything that isn't strictly science over there, or just clear out the "off-topic" stuff—don't just pick two random posts to scrub. I'm not going to get dragged into a back-and-forth about it. People can disagree, sure, we can dissect the logic all day, but this isn't the place for it. It doesn't prove whether the original point was right or wrong, and it doesn't justify why things are being deleted. As far as I can tell, the only reason this is happening is because someone didn't like an opinion they read. 🤷

Timothy Robinson2 said:Not everyone deserves those glowing compliments usually handed out to people who question the societal impact of homosexuality.

Regarding that, the real measure of civilization is whether they have the same rights as everyone else. And yes, pedophilia absolutely needs to be criminalized because, given a child's lack of maturity, it’s essentially an indirect form of rape.

None of this has anything to do with examining the underlying psychological drivers or the social mechanisms that dictate how we react to these phenomena.

Any social pressure against freedom of thought or inquiry does nothing for the truth—and certainly nothing for science, which is what this is actually about. Unfortunately, we live in a society where many psychiatrists might privately view homosexuality as a disorder, yet they won't say it publicly for fear of ruining their careers.

So, it’s purely a matter of social pressure and ideology. When you bring in repressive tools—like forum moderators—you’re moving into censorship territory.

To be clear, I’m not claiming homosexuality is a disorder. I’m saying it’s treated as one within specific frameworks where other similar things remain classified as disorders. We are seeing double standards born from indoctrination and social taboos rather than reason, science, logic, or actual argument.

Even if I am wrong, that isn't a valid reason for deleting posts. We all know why posts get removed. Deleting content simply because a moderator disagrees with it is, again, an abuse of power. Those moderators should be removed immediately if they can't distinguish between the two, especially when they insist that their personal opinion on a topic is the benchmark for both the "legality" and the very right of a post to exist.

Kate Bishop76 said:I can't link the thread because your posts were deleted. Just being a little captain obvious here.

Anyone got some links on this? 😉

You started this off by quoting: "Just as evolutionarily useless since it doesn't result in any offspring.When we talk about pedophilia, we need to distinguish between legal definitions and biological reality. A thirteen-year-old girl is biologically capable of having children. Because of that, the actual "deviation" from what's considered optimal is arguably less extreme than it is in the case of homosexuality. 😁"

So? Do you actually see a logical fallacy here? Is there hate speech, off-topic rambling, or any other actual rule violation? I get that you don't like what I said, but deleting posts just because they rub you the wrong way—without a legitimate reason—is a clear abuse of power.

Aquafina put it pretty well:

It might sound nice, but it’s just pure sophistry. It feels like a desperate attempt to rationalize an impulsive decision under the guise of ideological censorship. I didn't even write what they claimed I did. I wasn't trying to redefine anything, nor did I start these comparisons—I was simply building on a conversation that was already happening.

I'll just add a quick note here, since it seems pretty obvious you haven't read this thread—maybe only up to the last page. Since you aren't a moderator over there, you wouldn't have been able to see the deleted posts anyway. That whole discussion was crawling with insults and hate from all sorts of homophobes and intellectual lightweights. You started things off with that sentence I quoted above. Sorry, but to me, that’s just thinly veiled hate speech.

I'll admit, I haven't caught up on the previous posts yet. Naturally, that means I can't see anything that's already been deleted.
Hate speech isn't some hidden or obvious thing that you can just label whenever you feel like it. Honestly, if you find it offensive, that’s your business, but it’s no reason to go around hitting the delete button.

You talk about how scales are meaningless and subjective—whatever that means to you—yet you still manage to find an opening to claim that homosexuality is "unnatural." :Slow clap.

It’s not an absolute issue, just an unnatural one if you follow that logic. I'm talking about the inconsistency here—this tendency to use shifting, subjective criteria to label things right or wrong. It feels less like a series of serious, rational arguments and more like people reacting emotionally because they've internalized whatever social norms happen to be trending at the moment.

It’s irrelevant. You’re still framing this as a disagreement over an opinion rather than a violation of the rules. By doing that, you're basically admitting the mods are using their power to censor people based on their own personal "ideology." Given how much trouble they've faced for this before, I wonder if we're actually going to be consistent here, or if certain social issues are just considered untouchable now. 😁

Sure. Total abuse of power. If you had approached the topic differently, maybe the mods wouldn't have reacted this way.

All I see is that no actual rule violation was cited—just that you didn't like what was written. 😉
Are you suggesting that how someone enters a discussion should depend on whether a moderator finds it personally acceptable, even when no rules are broken? Are you really looking for trouble? 😁

If you're going to complain about posts being deleted, at least have the decency not to troll this thread.

That isn't trolling. It’s a legitimate point, especially since I brought up past precedents from the board. Of course it matters if someone has a personal connection to a situation; it provides context and highlights why their judgment might be subjective. That argument would hold up in any US court, so I don't see how you're calling it trolling.

There's no point discussing the other deleted post; it's off-topic. It was removed because it drifted from the subject (and you weren't even sanctioned for it).

Go ahead and quote both full posts right here so we can all take a look. 🙂

Ronald Morales51 said:Since we're talking about hard sciences here, I haven't seen a single decent idea in those threads. They were posted, sat there for a day, and achieved absolutely nothing positive.
The claim that homosexuality is a pathology or that pedophilia is a sexual preference—to paraphrase, obviously—can't serve as a premise for any real debate. The reasons are pretty self-explanatory.
Again, we're dealing with sensitive topics. They should be handled appropriately in the right subforums.

I think I've made my point.

Right, because that’s the main difference between this post—which is clearly overflowing with concrete scientific arguments, subtle irrefutable logic, and an aura of total genius—and yours, which sat there for a few days longer than mine without yielding any results at all. But clearly, there's no reason to delete it, right? Is it because you like what's being said, or did I just miss the undeniable scientific value because of my own intellectual limitations preventing me from grasping such profound depth and relevance? 🤔

Tippy said:Only an idiot would draw a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Your "paraphrase" is a huge stretch. I didn't claim either of those things outright; I was making comparisons within a specific context, not using absolute value judgments—which, for the record, I don't subscribe to anyway.

Even if that were the case, it could still be a basis for discussion. If we have the right to free speech and expression—which is a fundamental constitutional right in America—then we have the right to examine any issue from every angle. Blocking that is nothing more than ideological censorship.

And if a subforum isn't appropriate, just move to another one. That shouldn't have anything to do with deleting posts that aren't any different from the ones preceding them.

The arguments here—whether we're talking about the topic itself or your role as a moderator—all point to one thing: this simply isn't right. Using moderator tools just because you personally dislike an idea is pure censorship and an abuse of power. That kind of ego-driven gatekeeping should be left to middle schoolers.

Beyond the fact that you don't like what was written, what's the actual reason? Is it off-topic? Insulting? Hate speech? Just point to a specific rule from the forum guidelines that those posts supposedly violated. They aren't even making negative comments regarding homosexuality (which isn't even my aim; even if one chose to view it through a clinical lens, it’s just me rambling, not an attempt at judgment). They are trying to highlight social taboos and comparisons. Using moderation powers to settle an ideological clash rather than enforcing rules is completely unjustified.

Since when did homosexuality become such a sacred cow that you can't even discuss the social processes and contexts surrounding it without being censored? I'm trying to be objective here, avoiding both homophobic and homoerotic clichés as much as possible.

Is it really such a holy subject that any mention lacking total adoration warrants a deletion because someone took offense? What are your criteria here? Are you supposed to be guarding the rules of discussion, or are you deciding which opinions are "correct" and scrubbing the rest?

If you can't maintain some distance and stop using your mod status whenever an opinion rubs you the wrong way, then maybe you shouldn't be moderating at all.

Sorry I can't drop links here; I'm typing this out on my phone.

In that thread about homosexuality, I was just drawing parallels to other "disorders." It was a valid comparison—there was zero incitement to violence, no personal attacks, no hate speech, nothing of the sort. There are much more intense discussions on this topic over on Psychology Today, so I don't see why this had to be scrubbed. And since I wasn't the one who initiated the comparison, why did it get deleted right then? Because it made sense? Society hasn't even reached a total consensus on this, even if certain things were removed from medical manuals. There’s no justification for deleting posts other than censoring opinions that someone finds uncomfortable. I didn't even call homosexuality a disease; I was trying to show how definitions and attitudes shift throughout history. It's more about social norms and taboos than anything objective. Honestly, I would have expected someone to complain about the relativization of pedophilia—which is arguably the biggest taboo we have—rather than what was sent to me in a private message as the reason for the deletion. Apparently, my point was "not okay" and they assumed that's what I actually believe.

Yeah, that's exactly what I think, and that's fine. My posts shouldn't be deleted just because they don't align with a moderator's personal values, especially when they follow every single forum rule. This is a clear abuse of power.

I also wonder if the rainbow avatar indicates the moderator's sexual orientation; I don't recognize the username, so I couldn't say. If it does, it feels a lot like that situation where John lost his moderator status because he used his authority to delete dissenters during a discussion about his religious group.

driftinggull21 said:Patient care requires an individualized approach; some respond better to tricyclics, while others require SSRIs. A patent lasts for its designated term—typically 20 years—after which generics can be produced. The number of times the original brand-name drug was prescribed has no bearing on that process.🤷 Generally speaking, many psychiatrists prefer prescribing brand-name medications over generics.

What kind of act is that?🤷
Can you provide the link to that study? Otherwise, Americans have research claiming vaccines cause autism, yet they also have studies claiming they don't. One must be cautious with research.😁

It depends on the specific parameters involved. While older antipsychotics offer certain advantages, they are frequently criticized for lacking a "neuroprotective effect." When used alongside schizophrenia, they can still lead to neurodegeneration. Conversely, newer antipsychotics provide that neuroprotection, yet they face backlash due to increased appetite, which leads to significant weight gain and metabolic syndrome.
The standard procedure is to prioritize scheduling the newer AP units first; if they aren't available, we move on to the older ones.

I don't have a clue, honestly. I'm not interested enough to go digging through everything I mentioned during a casual chat, which is why I'm asking. 🙂

If I find anything, I'll post 🙂
.
Then again, research issues are always a thing, especially when people try to massage results when there's too much money on the line. I remember a case—take it with a grain of salt since I don't have a direct link and can't recall exactly where I heard it—involving a famous American psychiatrist who wrote columns for a prestigious journal. He eventually admitted he was just pushing a specific drug out of self-interest, essentially running a marketing campaign without any substance. Apparently, those articles were influential enough that plenty of his colleagues took them at face value and followed suit.

Look, I'm repeating myself here; all this info needs verifying, and I just don't have the time. However, whenever there's a lot of money involved—even with researchers acting on their own—I stay cautious. On the flip side, obviously, I don't want to fall down a rabbit hole of baseless conspiracy theories either.

I also heard recently—before it was even official—that some independent study on antipsychotics suggested the older generations of meds actually yielded better results 🤔

It’s also true that under the new transparency laws here in the US, they were forced to release some research they had been dodging for years. Apparently, it shows SSRIs are basically just fancy placebos—they might make you feel like something is happening, but they don't actually have any measurable impact on depression itself. So, you're just left with side effects that create a stronger placebo sensation, while the actual depressive symptoms stay exactly where they were. 🤷

Anyway, that's just what I heard. Does anyone actually know the specifics of what this study is about?

She mentioned in a private chat that she came across some psychiatrists on various forums who argued that those old-school tricyclic antidepressants were actually more effective than the SSRIs we see everywhere today. Apparently, while the older stuff comes with its own set of nasty side effects, the push for newer meds is largely driven by the bottom line—big pharma pushes the latest drugs because they still hold the patents, whereas the generics don't bring in nearly as much cash.

??? 🤷 🤔 :teorijezavjereito: 😁

All we need now is for people from overseas to start judging us over those old Mujo jokes. 😁

vividorca9 said:Don't go shoving me into that category just because I'm trying to be objective. For the record, I’m a huge advocate for Gay rights. But honestly? It’s not that deep. Two guys or two girls kissing or sleeping together isn't some massive crisis. 🤷

Honestly, it’s neither realistic nor smart to allow same-sex couples to adopt children in this country right now. We need more time—a lot of time—for things to actually stabilize in that regard. I mean, what are you even talking about? Kids in schools bully each other just because their parents are poor; do you seriously think they won't act out just because they have two moms or two dads? The human brain is wired to react to anything different with confusion or outright aversion. It needs to be trained—and I’m sorry to have to say it like this—to accept diversity. If you think it's a smart move to open up adoption to you guys right here and now, then you're being, quite frankly, delusional. And that has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Don't take it personally; I really didn't intend to insult you.

Look, when it comes to the whole argument that adoption or IVF by gay couples somehow "takes away" someone's mother or father—I completely disagree. But I’m not going to get into a massive debate about it right here, because you guys will just give me a headache. You’ve still got a hell of a long fight ahead of you before that kind of thing is even an option in this country.

But they’re also having sex. 😲

Of course it’s not that simple. "Conditions" are entirely relative. The average American certainly enjoys better practical advantages—more free time, more resources, and perhaps a different psychological baseline. But there's this constant urge to generalize everything. The reality is much more individual. Nothing is ever truly universal, and nothing is objectively "better" or "worse" without context.