Deleted posts - Science section: Homosexuality thread moderated by Aqualung

Take another look at my previous posts and tell me—do you actually see the point, or do I need to draw you a map?
If I had been here when you originally wrote that, I would have steered this entire conversation toward the exact direction you likely intended.
Your post was open to two different interpretations, which is why Aquafina and Timothy Jackson2 were hesitant before ultimately deciding to delete it.

So, are you going to keep whining and lamenting over a post that nobody regrets losing, or are you going to learn how to articulate your thoughts more clearly next time?

Make up your mind, because as far as I’m concerned, I am finished with this debate.

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

bluemason3 said:Honestly, this sounds like it could be legally classified as unlawful equalization.

Trying to equate a legal human preference with something that is fundamentally rejected by our laws and cultural standards could easily be interpreted as hate speech.

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.

bluemason3 said:So, basically, I’m not allowed to argue that a dominant partner in a BDSM relationship—where they're roleplaying a scenario to satisfy specific kinks or fantasies—might actually share psychological traits with a criminal rapist, even if it isn't actual rape and doesn't break any laws, because saying that counts as hate speech?

How on earth did you jump from what I originally said to this specific point?
Maybe?
A legal sexual preference = roleplaying in sex
Something legally and socially unacceptable = rape

If you think they're the same thing, then you completely missed my point.
If you don't, then I'd love to hear your reasoning.

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.

Asking a question isn't the same thing as making an equivalence.

bluemason3 said:I just don't see how that connects to hate speech, or even to looking at the psychological, biological, or social mechanisms behind a phenomenon by comparing them.

I’ve actually bolded the word **can** here—it's a possibility, not a certainty.
Of course, interpretation is all about context, and science itself isn't inherently stripped of hate speech.
To be clear, I haven't seen any controversial posts yet, so I'm not claiming they contain hate speech, nor am I saying they don't.
From what I've observed, a big part of the hate speech directed at gay men involves conflating being gay with being a pedophile.

As it stands, addiction itself isn't illegal.

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.

bluemason3 said:...
Also, quick question—does that rainbow moderator avatar imply they're gay? I don't recognize the handle, so I can't say for sure. If it does, this feels a lot like what happened when casualtiger2 lost their mod status—using their power to scrub anyone with a different opinion just because they were posting about their religious group.

Is it just old age, or am I losing my mind, but bluemason3 is flat-out wrong here.
The admin team actually asked me to stay (I can forward you the email if you want), but I stepped down because of real-life stuff—you can see the details on page 17 of the mod thread I started, titled "New Mod for Spiritually Focused PDF."
As for the claim that I "used my powers to delete dissenters without cause"—that’s just pure projection on your part. Same goes for your stubborn, mindless insistence that Komaja is a "religious group" (if it actually is one, just tell me what faith they follow already).

If your whole grievance rests on this one paragraph, then you're honestly just wasting your time being upset.

bluemason3 said:I was drawing some parallels between homosexuality and other "disorders" during that discussion.The comparison holds water. There was no call for violence, no personal attacks, and definitely no hate speech involved.

It’s like we're being treated as second-class citizens here. Your hate speech is pretty blatant. 🙄

fadedmason6 said:Whatever. It’s like we're second-class citizens or something, since you've decided my words count as hate speech. 🙄

That "hate speech" stuff is just in your head.

Scientists say there isn't just one version of "normal" sexuality. Everything he was looking into and debating were just biological connections—not cultural or legal ones.

The whole idea of what's considered "normal" versus "abnormal" regarding sexual preference shifts constantly through history. If you look at a hundred years before or after any given point, you get a totally different perspective.

It's legitimate, and under free speech, people should be allowed to point that out and ask why, without getting censored.

Grouping pedophilia and homosexuality together is just nonsense. It’s honestly insulting.

fadedmason6 said:Grouping pedophilia and homosexuality together is just lazy. And offensive.

It’s kind of like saying you can group heterosexuality and pedophilia together. 😁

You talk like it would be offensive to suggest most pedophiles are straight men, or if saying most zoophiles are men was somehow an insult.

Heterosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, even homosexuality—biologically speaking, they’re all just variations of the same drive, the need for sexual connection expressed in different ways. So, I guess it's fair to debate how common they are, which ones have evolutionary backing, and what the pros and cons might be for each.

Timothy Robinson2 said:It’s kind of like putting heterosexuality and pedophilia in the same category.😁

You're acting like suggesting most pedophiles are straight men—or saying most zoophiles are men—would be an insult. It isn't.

From a purely biological standpoint, heterosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, and even homosexuality are just different variations of the same basic drive for sexual connection. Because of that, it's perfectly reasonable to debate their prevalence, whether they make sense from an evolutionary perspective, and what the specific pros and cons are for each.

Sure, people will try to claim homosexuality is a disorder right along with pedophilia... I've seen it all.

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.