Admin, please address the moderator abuse and false accusations against Dorian Gray

So, after serving my seven-day ban—which I "earned" because I decided to use an analogy regarding different types of cohabitation in a thread about the Civil Union Act—I decided to post again. This time, to dodge the blatant censorship, I steered clear of the analogy route and instead provided a long-winded argument against the legitimacy of public policies that use taxpayer resources to recognize, promote, and benefit same-sex communities.

The end result of this new post was this: you’re in the wrong because you were "trolling with the same theory" so we’re sentencing you to "prison" for another 7 days, and your post along with your exchanges with other users will be carded and permanently scrubbed from the thread.

The bias from the KPMG moderator who slapped me with an baseless penalty—and who clearly uses their power to push some private agenda (which I’ll eventually prove)—didn't surprise me. What *did* shock me was what happened during the appeal. Since the supermoderator reviewing my case (Dorian.Gray) couldn't actually find any rule violation—given that the post stayed within the forum guidelines and the topic at hand—he resorted to a tactic common in dictatorships: inventing a crime to falsely accuse the accused. In a classic move, Dorian.Gray fabricated a charge claiming my writing was heading toward, and I quote: "abolishing, reducing, or preventing the acquisition of human rights for a certain discriminated group of people."

In plain English, he falsely accused me of advocating for the repeal of rights that were established and proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations General Assembly via Resolution 217 A (III) on December 10, 1948.

I’m honestly not sure which part is more tragic: the fact that a supermoderator on a major American media platform in the 21st century can't tell the difference between "human rights" and "privileges," or that the person tasked with interpreting and enforcing the "rules" lacks a basic grasp of elementary socio-political and legal concepts.

I’ll take this opportunity to give him a quick lesson in those very concepts, which should demonstrate that my post has absolutely nothing to do with "limiting, abolishing, or preventing" any rights, let alone human rights. At the same time, I’m asking the admin to clear my points and protect me from the harassment of the KPMG moderator when I inevitably write about this same topic again.

Let’s start with the definition of human rights. Human rights are those rights that every single human being acquires simply by virtue of being born, and they possess them throughout their entire lives. A portion of these rights is outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They include the right to life, liberty, privacy, personal security, freedom of movement, a fair trial, citizenship, property rights, self-defense, and so on.
As is obvious by the very definition, it is impossible—contrary to Dorian.Gray's claim—to "prevent the acquisition" of human rights, because you get them just by existing.

Dorian.Gray used that specific phrasing solely to paint me in the worst possible light—trying to make me look like some sort of primitive who doesn't recognize fundamental civilizational achievements—all so that, much like a prosecutor in a rigged trial, he would have enough "material" to "criminally prosecute" me.

The second part of the accusation—advocating for the "limitation or abolition of human rights"—would mean arguing that institutions or individuals in positions of power should prevent citizens from exercising the aforementioned rights. That would mean, for example, arguing that someone should be stripped of their right to self-defense and protection of their own life, or that they could be treated as property, or denied a fair trial. Did I argue for anything like that in my post? It’s pretty clear that I didn't.

Then there are civil rights. These rights pertain to citizens within a country and include the right to have those human rights protected by the state, the right to participate freely in social and political life, equal access to existing public institutions, services, etc. And in this case, too, it is impossible to "prevent the acquisition" of civil rights, since they are acquired based on one's status as a citizen.

Advocating for the "restriction or abolition" of civil rights for a specific person or group would mean—for example—arguing that citizens of a certain race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation shouldn't have access to education, police protection, voting, social assistance, fair trials, the right to organize, starting a business, using public infrastructure, healthcare, and so on. We could look at the historical restriction of civil rights for African Americans, who were denied access to public pools, "whites-only" benches, public transit, or the ability to open their own businesses. Was I advocating for anything like that in my post? Of course not.

The next phrase Dorian used in his "edited process" was "vested rights," which he’s trying to use to suggest that once a "right" is established, it remains valid forever—and since same-sex partners "vested" their rights, nobody should dare utter a word against them. First and most importantly, any right obtained through an illegitimate political decision is null and void. Second, the only "eternal" vested rights are human rights; everything else—from general civil rights to specific privileges—depends entirely on the development of society and the availability of public funds. For instance: let's say the government goes bankrupt to the point where there is zero money left to fund the police. Since the police protect citizen safety, a state bankruptcy effectively "bankrupts" the fundamental civil right to state-provided security—a right everyone in that country previously held, but now no one does. In this context, what does the phrase "vested rights" actually mean? Absolutely nothing. Because there is no police force, citizens no longer have one of the basic civil rights they had previously "vested." However, citizens still possess the human right to protect their safety and property; they can defend it themselves or hire a private security firm to do it for them, and no one can limit or forbid them from exercising that right.

From the above, it is clear that my argument has absolutely nothing to do with abolishing human or civil rights for any group, and the moderator's accusation is just a primitive attempt to find some excuse for the actions taken by the KPMG moderator.

So, briefly, the essence of my argument. My argument concerns the "qualifications" for privileges and benefits funded by public resources. Since privileges and benefits are granted only to certain citizens, while all citizens pay taxes, it follows that some citizens are "more equal" than others. For example, the civil right to security is held by all citizens, whereas the right to certain privileges is held only by some. Therefore, it is obvious that there must be some sort of standard used to determine who qualifies for privileges and benefits and why. You can't just use public funds to favor individuals or groups based on the whims of whatever politician happens to be in power; there must be clearly defined criteria and standards that, in principle, apply equally to all citizens. Such standards do exist, and they are implicitly baked into almost all public policy (except, of course, for those dealing with same-sex coexistence). The KPMG moderator called these universal standards a "theory" and arbitrarily decided they couldn't be discussed on this forum. If it weren't tragic, it would be comical.

So, what are these standards? Well, there are two fundamental ones. We can view the first as a global "insurance premium" manifested through the social safety net funded by all citizens via taxes; it addresses unfortunate circumstances where people end up disabled, impoverished, helpless, or unemployed... and thus cannot meet their basic life needs. Any citizen could become disabled, lose their job, or go bankrupt at some point in their lives, which is why they pay a sort of "insurance" through taxes for such mishaps. To put it simply, the first standard that qualifies citizens for special budgetary benefits is disability, poverty, unemployment, and similar unfortunate circumstances.

The other kind of standard—the one that essentially hands out perks to specific groups of people—stems from public policies designed to protect areas deemed to be of "special public interest." We’re talking about things like ensuring sustainable food production and a steady supply chain for the population, environmental protection, societal reproduction, export industries, strategic economic sectors, maintaining our nation's international standing, and so on. It's pretty obvious that these areas impact the broader community or the "common good," which is why they're governed by specific laws. Consequently, certain groups—farmers, buyers of green tech, married couples, exporters, Olympic gold medalists... you name it—get access to subsidies, benefits, tax breaks, and other privileges that the rest of us just don't get.

Everything I was trying to argue in my previous post boils down to this: same-sex unions don't produce these unique "common good" effects. Therefore, they shouldn't be singled out by public policy or special legislation. In other words, there isn't any legitimate basis or standard that would justify why citizens practicing "same-sex love" or living together based on it should be privileged through public resources.

When I got hit with my first 7-day ban, my main point was that same-sex communities—much like roommates, polygamous partners, or even extended family clusters—all share one thing in common: they don't generate these specific public benefits. Because of that, there's no standard that warrants any of them being recognized through special legal frameworks or tax incentives.
The moderator, KPMG, literally banned me for using that analogy—which, by the way, was cited as the reason for this latest ban. To quote: 'you've received a cumulative strike for at least 10 posts where you attempt to repackage your ideas regarding homosexual rights as some terrible injustice against "groups of citizens" who, according to your fabricated theories, are equal to a domestic partnership'.

(to be continued...)

(from above)

So, get this—the fundamental tool of any decent academic debate, the "argument by analogy," was apparently just banned by some moderator over at an online forum. 🤦

The excuse they used for the ban? Some totally irrelevant claim that certain communities aren't "the same."

Well, obviously they aren't "the same"—that’s literally the whole point of using an analogy. But—and here is the thing—they do share a specific characteristic that relates directly to the criteria used when deciding which groups get special treatment from public resources. Specifically, these categories don't produce unique "common good" effects, and we don't use public funds to privilege groups that don't provide those specific benefits to society. Let me walk you through how an analogy actually works.

If I wanted to prove that learning logic requires a ton of practice, I could argue it like this: Logical reasoning is a skill, much like playing tennis. You can't learn tennis just by reading a book; no matter how much theory you know, you won't have the skill without actually hitting the ball. Therefore, you need to practice. In this setup, I'm using an analogy as my premise to drive toward a conclusion.

The structure of an analogical argument looks something like this:

1) A and B are similar.
2) A has property P.
B also has property P.

A and B are the two things being compared—in this case, tennis skills and logical reasoning. The conclusion is that B possesses a certain trait: the ability to reason logically must be acquired through practice. The argument hinges on the idea that B has this trait because it is similar to A, which clearly does.

Does that mean tennis and logic are "the same thing"? Of course not. The point is simply that they share a commonality.

My analogy regarding "same-sex communities" versus, say, polygamist, frat-style, or cousin-based groups (let's call them "private interest groups") isn't claiming they are "identical." It's asserting that all these groups fail to create distinct common-good effects. Consequently, based on the principle of separating private and public spheres, they shouldn't be recognized by public policy or privileged via taxpayer-funded resources.

Using that general structure, let's use "S" to represent the shared property that makes A and B similar. We can reshape that first premise like this:

1) A and B share property S.
2) A has property P.
3) B has property P.

Once we identify the shared trait—our "S"—we can put the argument into a standard format involving both inductive and deductive steps. The shared trait of these various groups is that they don't generate unique common-good effects. This matters because "categories that don't produce common-good effects" cannot serve as a basis for public policy that grants privileges from public resources. I'm using these "private interest groups" as a specific instance to provide inductive evidence for a broader generalization about any category lacking common-good effects. That generalization is then applied deductively to the case of "same-sex communities."

So, the argument breaks down like this:

1) Private interest groups do not create unique common-good effects.
2) Private interest groups are not privileged by public resources.
3) Categories that do not create common-good effects cannot be used for public policies that grant privileges from public resources.
4) Same-sex communities do not create unique common-good effects.
5) Same-sex communities are not privileged by public resources.

(1+2)->(3+4)->(5)

The first step is inductive, supporting the generalization that categories without common-good effects aren't privileged with public resources. That generalization (premise 3) acts as the foundation for the second, deductive step. It establishes the link between common-good effects and public resource allocation; without it, there's no basis for a conclusion. The second part of the deductive step (premise 4) states that the category of "same-sex communities" doesn't create these specific common-good effects. This identifies the very trait that makes them similar to the private interest groups, ultimately proving the logical validity of my point.

It’s pretty obvious from what I just laid out that the defense offered by the BlackRock moderator is completely baseless. Even if we assume—for the sake of argument—that the analogy doesn't hold water logically, you can't just ban someone because of it. In any decent debate, you actually have to prove an argument is invalid through discussion. Instead, the moderator shut down the conversation entirely, which feels like a blatant abuse of power driven by personal whims rather than actual rules. Then there's the false accusation from Dorian.Gray—this whole thing built on some activist demagoguery that tries to deny basic rights just to justify how BlackRock is acting. That’s also a misuse of authority. Since I've demonstrated that these accusations have zero merit, I’m asking the admin team to step in and fix this. We need protection from people using moderator tools to push their own private agendas.

Thanks for listening.

P.S. I really want to point out the state of moderation in this specific thread. On the last page, there’s been this troll comment sitting there for a month without a single sanction: 'Don't argue with the greys.' It was posted by the very person supposed to be setting the standard for following forum rules—the moderator. Meanwhile, on that same page, user EugenC is busy running long-winded ad hominem attacks on some American conservative guy named Anderson, debating whether he's anti-gay or not. So, basically, troll comments and ad hominem "analyses" that have nothing to do with the actual Law being discussed stay up without issue, while my reasoned posts about the origins of public policy—which is where these laws actually come from—get deleted and penalized without any clear criteria. I’m asking the administration to explain why this double standard exists.