The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Gonales]

Oh you can request all you want, you have the freedom to do that. Just as much as I have the freedom to deny your request in my home, and the mods in this website.

Yes, difference is... Famine is stating i don't have the right to make the request. He says I'm not allowed to. See the difference?

 

[sumbrownkid]

Which request? The request that people say nice things all the time and not express words that may hurt you?

That's realistically not going to happen. Famine is a mod and can only do what Jordan asks of him. If you really think this website is constricting you then take it up with Jordan.

 

[Famine]

Actually, Danny was SPOT on, on his first bit of text.

Pity that you contradicted his suggestion of where there may be vagueness in four separate posts to Azuremen, homeforsummer and I.

The question rather remains unanswered though. Do you not make fat jokes at all (something you strenuously deny typing, despite no-one suggesting you did), or just not around your fat friend (something you strenuously deny)?

Yes, difference is... Famine is stating i don't have the right to make the request. He says I'm not allowed to. See the difference?

No, I'm saying you don't get to request people on GTP adhere to your standard of behaviour. You can in your own home/site or in public, but in someone else's home, they make the rules.

If you walk into my house and request I don't smoke because it offends you, not eat a beefburger because you're a vegan, or change the TV channel because you think Rupert Murdoch is evil and should be in prison, I'll scoot you straight back out again. And I no more smoke than I engage in homophobic behaviour.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Shoot I make fat jokes in presence of fat friends and they appreciate it cause I'm actually respecting them by saying it in their presence. Likewise they joke about my beard and Indian tendency to be cheap.

I'd rather respect a person who can say it to my face than behind my back. That's what makes good friends.

 

[Gonales]

The emphasis would be the "I", rather than the qualifier. Since she referred to no other people who'd make [stereotype offending jokes] around [stereotype friend] and then repeatedly said that qualifier doesn't count in what she's learned of English (making all English speakers wrong), the emphasis is the qualifier.
Also, the concept amuses me. It's a short walk away from "I'm not racist. Some of my friends are black."...

What would it matter if those friends are black?

Back to the point: You won't accept there is any other explanation for the words I used. Why do you think I don't like you? You're as stubborn as a donkey yourself. :/

Isn't it? Well, I'm glad you've got the big book of what's offensive open, deciding what's offensive for everyone on the planet again

If you think there is any offense in the fact I used the word Kiwi in a sentence, than you're really far off. It's the name of a fruit, nothing else.

Then you do not understand logic either.

Read the post with number: 2607. Don't tell me I do not understand logic, when you apparently can't even read basic sentences. Sick and tired of explaining myself 3 times and you still taking the piss, when it's obviously NOT what I meant.

No. It's a condition. It implies - the reader does not infer - that you place conditions on your behaviour, not absolutes.

I always stated my sentence didn't contain any absolutes. So seriously, what's the problem?

No, you stated that freedom of speech was for the "averagely intelligent".

I said that it was a trump card for the average intelligent, and seeing my post above that, you should realise that it was the trump car for insulting and than thinking it's okay to insult people.

Then you failed to understand what "one of their moderators" was getting across to you. GTPlanet doesn't permit homophobia because we don't entertain homophobes (and last time I said that, you interpreted "entertain" as "entertainment" not "permit entry to" and decided we'd allow homophobia if we found it funny).

Like so many things in life, not everything is 100% clear. So instead of using difficult words and stuff like that, not explain it like the mature person you are supposed to be?

Then you are no better than the people who call you gay and refuse to apologise when you complain.

No. I only insult people who insult someone else on purpose. Those that call stuff gay and insult me by doing that, have no right to do so.

Of course I don't actually want an apology, because it's not relevant.

Maybe not to you, but than why do you keep bringing up the fact that I haven't apologised yet?

Mocking your points is different to mocking you. Learn the difference.

No it's not. A person their ideas belongs to a person their education, how they were raised and their personality. Mock the idea, mock the person.

It'll never be closed so long as there's folk like you who think you can regulate speech and thought to generate acceptance. Saying you support limiting speech is saying you think homosexuality should be banned - which is an incredible position for a homosexual to hold.

STOP making assumptions! I AM gay, and people that find that offensive should know its NOT my choice. However, those that are being offensive by using gay in a wrong way, HAVE a choice. There is a big difference.

Again, you speak as if you're the only one who experiences boorishness from others. You aren't.

Where did I do that? Seriously? You think M.L. King had no right to protest either? Because he stood up against inequality.

Changing things by banning speech and having people locked up for holding opinions will not only not make things easier - it'll make things worse for everyone, including your children.

Your opinion. Nothing more.

Pity that you contradicted his suggestion of where there may be vagueness in four separate posts to Azuremen, homeforsummer and I.

The question rather remains unanswered though. Do you not make fat jokes at all (something you strenuously deny typing, despite no-one suggesting you did), or just not around your fat friend (something you strenuously deny)?

How many times do I still need to type this out? Seriously? I do NOT make those kind of jokes.

No, I'm saying you don't get to request people on GTP adhere to your standard of behaviour. You can in your own home/site or in public, but in someone else's home, they make the rules.

If you walk into my house and request I don't smoke because it offends you, not eat a beefburger because you're a vegan, or change the TV channel because you think Rupert Murdoch is evil and should be in prison, I'll scoot you straight back out again. And I no more smoke than I engage in homophobic behaviour.

Because you don't want it to. You're not Jordan, NOR is there any kind of rule in the AUP that forbids me making the request. So don't tell me I can't.

Shoot I make fat jokes in presence of fat friends and they appreciate it cause I'm actually respecting them by saying it in their presence. Likewise they joke about my beard and Indian tendency to be cheap.

I'd rather respect a person who can say it to my face than behind my back. That's what makes good friends.

I won't say it either way, as I stated a dozen (exaggeration) times before. And people that make a joke about being gay, I don't mind it as much, if they are really good friends and do it at the right time. But I'm not talking about friends making jokes, I'm talking about disrespectfull people using words the way they weren't supposed to be used.

 

[Famine]

What would it matter if those friends are black?

Exactly the point.

Back to the point: You won't accept there is any other explanation for the words I used.

Except the one you vaguely admitted to - you used the words wrongly.

Why do you think I don't like you?

Why is that relevant?

You're as stubborn as a donkey yourself. :/

And again you're hurling names out instead of discussing the point.

If you think there is any offense in the fact I used the word Kiwi in a sentence, than you're really far off. It's the name of a fruit, nothing else.

It's also the name of a bird and the slang name of people from a nation. You've decided that there's no form of offence in there. Why do you get to draw the line for the whole planet, again?

Read the post with number: 2607. Don't tell me I do not understand logic

If you think it's illogical that private individuals should determine the rules for their private property, you do not understand logic.

when you apparently can't even read basic sentences. Sick and tired of explaining myself 3 times and you still taking the piss, when it's obviously NOT what I meant.

We can only read what you type. If you mean something other than what you type and have to explain it three times, the shortcoming is with what you type, not anyone else.

I always stated my sentence didn't contain any absolutes. So seriously, what's the problem?

And now you're muddying the issue again by confirming you wrote a conditional despite denying doing so.

I said that it was a trump card for the average intelligent, and seeing my post above that, you should realise that it was the trump car for insulting and than thinking it's okay to insult people.

We can only read what you type. If you mean something else, type something else - don't type something wrong and abuse other people for your faults.

Like so many things in life, not everything is 100% clear. So instead of using difficult words and stuff like that, not explain it like the mature person you are supposed to be?

I have. Myriad times, using no difficult words of any kind.

No. I only insult people who insult someone else on purpose. Those that call stuff gay and insult me by doing that, have no right to do so.

So why did you insult GTPlanet and me? Neither has insulted you. Why did you insult Dennisch with a post I had to remove when he didn't insult you either?

No it's not. A person their ideas belongs to a person their education, how they were raised and their personality. Mock the idea, mock the person.

Nope. That's why this forum exists and is generally a pleasant place - people recognise that the opinions they express are distinct from them and we discuss the opinions, sometimes a few times. Sensible people can think silly things - that doesn't make them silly people.

STOP making assumptions!

There was no assumption. Supporting the limitation of speech supports the limitation of speech - it's precedent, as explained and ignored multiple times, for further and further limitations until simple being homosexual is illegal.

Where did I do that? Seriously? You think M.L. King had no right to protest either? Because he stood up against inequality.

This is gibberish. If you're comparing yourself to Martin Luther King, delusional gibberish.

Your opinion. Nothing more.

Nope. Something to which history has been witness time after time. As soon as freedom of speech or thought is limited, people are oppressed. Once one group is oppressed, others can be oppressed by precedent.

Belgium was heavily on the receiving end of a well-known patch of history which started in this manner. It's alarming to see anyone from it supporting its return - especially from a group that was itself oppressed under that regime.

Because you don't want it to.

Because I don't want what to?

You're not Jordan, NOR is there any kind of rule in the AUP that forbids me making the request. So don't tell me I can't.

No, I'm telling you that the only standard of behaviour you can ask people to adhere to is the one in the AUP, because this is a private site with private rules.

 

[Gonales]

Except the one you vaguely admitted to - you used the words wrongly.

No, I used them superfluously. They didn't have any addition to the sentence. Except the fact that other people might make jokes about overweight people when those people are actually there. (Which Danny pointed out).

Why is that relevant?

Because it might explain why I called you names?

And again you're hurling names out instead of discussing the point

Yeah, 'cause discussing the point is useless with you here. You don't want to understand what I say anyway.

It's also the name of a bird and the slang name of people from a nation. You've decided that there's no form of offence in there. Why do you get to draw the line for the whole planet, again?

Simple. Basic intention of the usage.

If you think it's illogical that private individuals should determine the rules for their private property, you do not understand logic.

I stated multiple times... He can set the rules. But when there are rules not set, or not clearly worked out, than the logical conclusion: it is allowed. If Law didn't state that I couldn't steal... Stealing would be allowed.

We can only read what you type. If you mean something other than what you type and have to explain it three times, the shortcoming is with what you type, not anyone else.

No, you guys read something I hadn't typed, that's the difference. (Which I already said 3 times as well.)

And now you're muddying the issue again by confirming you wrote a conditional despite denying doing so.

You seem to misunderstand my usage of the word absolute. What I meant, is that my sentence did NOT mean, any other thing than it literally said.

We can only read what you type. If you mean something else, type something else - don't type something wrong and abuse other people for your faults.

Not my fault. I typed a bit of superfluous text, which you and some other people immediately took your opinions from. Not my fault.

I have. Myriad times, using no difficult words of any kind.

Yeah right. Keep telling yourself that if that makes you feel better.

So why did you insult GTPlanet and me? Neither has insulted you. Why did you insult Dennisch with a post I had to remove when he didn't insult you either?

I already apologised to Dennisch. And yes, he had insulted me in a way. Not going into details.

Nope. That's why this forum exists and is generally a pleasant place - people recognise that the opinions they express are distinct from them and we discuss the opinions, sometimes a few times. Sensible people can think silly things - that doesn't make them silly people.

Imo, it does make them silly people.

There was no assumption. Supporting the limitation of speech supports the limitation of speech - it's precedent, as explained and ignored multiple times, for further and further limitations until simple being homosexual is illegal.

Sigh, ffs. Learn to read. Being homosexual is NOT an opinion, it's a fact!

This is gibberish. If you're comparing yourself to Martin Luther King, delusional gibberish.

Finally you get the point. I'm trying to make changes to this world, whether you agree with them or not, I couldn't care less. I want people to stop using the word gay in a wrong way. That's something I want to achieve. It doesn't matter who I am, or what I am.

Nope. Something to which history has been witness time after time. As soon as freedom of speech or thought is limited, people are oppressed. Once one group is oppressed, others can be oppressed by precedent.

If you say so... You seem to forget that at this point there are a lot of people not allowed to speak freely yet, including homosexuals in specific countries. You seem to forget that the oppression comes from the will to have power, nothing else?

Because I don't want what to?

"If you walk into my house and request I don't smoke because it offends you, not eat a beefburger because you're a vegan, or change the TV channel because you think Rupert Murdoch is evil and should be in prison, I'll scoot you straight back out again. And I no more smoke than I engage in homophobic behaviour."

You don't want me to do those things, fine, you made a rule about it. However, this is not your forum, nor is there a rule that forbids me stating my opinion, or making a request.

No, I'm telling you that the only standard of behaviour you can ask people to adhere to is the one in the AUP, because this is a private site with private rules.

Wrong, there is nothing about being able to ask people to change their behavior, as long as it doesn't collide with the AUP.

 

[Müle]

Again? Really?

 

[Gonales]

Again? Really?

Yes again. If you have a problem with that, don't come into the thread.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Yes again. If you have a problem with that, don't come into the thread.

I have a better idea, how about he stays and you stop acting holier than thou.💡

You clearly don't like the turn this discussion has taken as well. Or should I say Circus?

 

[Gonales]

I have a better idea, how about he stays and you stop acting holier than thou.💡

You clearly don't like the turn this discussion has taken as well.

I don't mind the turn the discussion took. It's the post I reacted to, which I reacted to. Nothing else. No deeper meaning. If he can't bring anything decent forward, what is he doing here instead of trying to make someone feel worse?

 

[Famine]

No, I used them superfluously.

"Wrongly".

They didn't have any addition to the sentence. Except the fact that other people might make jokes about overweight people when those people are actually there. (Which Danny pointed out).

And which several of your other replies prior to Danny's note directly denied.

Because it might explain why I called you names?

Why you've chosen to call me names is irrelevant. That you have done so is. It shows you're incapable of discussing a point with people who don't agree with you only for the reason that they don't agree with you.

Furthermore it calls you right out as a liar and a hypocrite. Apparently it's now alright to insult people you don't like. Guess what? Some people don't like homosexuals. Now... what was it you were saying about them insulting homosexuals again..?

Yeah, 'cause discussing the point is useless with you here.

Then don't do it. Don't use it as an excuse to be the abusive person you claim to hate.

Simple. Basic intention of the usage.

But only when it's words you're using?

Incredible.

I stated multiple times... He can set the rules. But when there are rules not set, or not clearly worked out, than the logical conclusion: it is allowed. If Law didn't state that I couldn't steal... Stealing would be allowed.

It's funny 'cos logic clearly dictates that depriving another of their property without their consent is not permitted.

No, you guys read something I hadn't typed, that's the difference. (Which I already said 3 times as well.)

Nope. We read something you did type. We can still only do that.

You seem to misunderstand my usage of the word absolute. What I meant, is that my sentence did NOT mean, any other thing than it literally said.

An absolute is something that exists free of condition. Whatever you're using it to mean is irrelevant, but I'm sure you'll object on the grounds that all the native English speakers and the guys paid to read and write English for a living are stupid or something.

Not my fault. I typed a bit of superfluous text, which you and some other people immediately took your opinions from. Not my fault.

You used some words wrongly and said you meant something else. You failed to get what was in your head onto the screen and instead typed something else. No-one else's fault.

Yeah right. Keep telling yourself that if that makes you feel better.

You could read back if you like. It's there at least three times and none of the words are outside a normal vocabulary.

I already apologised to Dennisch. And yes, he had insulted me in a way. Not going into details.

Pity, the details are important.

You posted a large jpg insulting another member because he disagreed with you. This is not acceptable here. It never was nor will it ever be. I had to remove it for this reason. You still haven't learned this.

Imo, it does make them silly people.

You're expressing the silly opinion that limiting speech will make people more free, despite all the examples from history.

No-one's once insulted you for it.

Sigh, ffs. Learn to read. Being homosexual is NOT an opinion, it's a fact!

Please let me know where I said homosexuality is an opinion. Then come back to me about learning to read.

Finally you get the point.

You're actually comparing yourself to Martin Luther King?!

Wow.

No, I mean... wow. Only a child of the 90s could be so self-absorbed as to think they, in a civilised, Western country that affords them and their particular group legal protection from discrimination, can compare themselves to a man who fought - with words, mark you and no insults directed at others - to get a racial group allowed to vote, sit on the bus, congregate with and even use the same doors as the rest of the human race who had societally determined that his group were not actually human.

If you say so... You seem to forget that at this point there are a lot of people not allowed to speak freely yet, including homosexuals in specific countries.

Not really. In fact that bolsters the point. Limiting freedoms = oppression of groups. And look, homosexuals are amongst those groups oppressed. Why it's almost exactly what I've been telling you for a month.

You don't want me to do those things, fine, you made a rule about it. However, this is not your forum, nor is there a rule that forbids me stating my opinion, or making a request.

Wrong, there is nothing about being able to ask people to change their behavior, as long as it doesn't collide with the AUP.

Why are you not grasping this extraordinarily simple premise? Why are you always missing the point so glaringly?

This, here is a private place. It is GTPlanet, a private place made by its owner, Jordan. The rules governing this private place are the rules he has set - in addition to the rules of the United States of America where the site is hosted. You are here by his will alone. Here, in this place, he gets to say what the rules are and he gets to ask people to abide by a set of behaviours. You do not.

I'm not talking about what you're allowed to do, what the AUP says, what the rules are. I'm saying that in this private place you do not get to ask people to abide by any rules that are not GTPlanet's rules.

You can make you own little thread with your own little additional rules at the beginning of it and request that people join the thread and not break the rules - like a racing series does - but don't for a moment think that the general population have any obligation whatsoever to abide by them, even within the thread.

Yes again. If you have a problem with that, don't come into the thread.

No. You don't get to limit which threads people go into either.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I don't mind the turn the discussion took. It's the post I reacted to, which I reacted to. Nothing else. No deeper meaning. If he can't bring anything decent forward, what is he doing here instead of trying to make someone feel worse?

How exactly him posting that make someone feel worse. Is that someone so fragile that they see criticism in every word?

 

[Gonales]

Famine: You are not reading what I say. The reason I'm not capable of discussing this topic is because you're so extremely short sighted. You don't understand my point about the rules of the forum, you do not understand my point about what I said... You don't understand my point of what I think an offensive comment is. Besides, I didn't tell him to leave the thread. I told him, if he doesn't want to see an argument between me and Famine, he shouldn't come into the thread when it's 100% clear there is an argument going on. Or he could leave without his sarcastic comment, without harm done.

After you clear those things up, I'll be willing to talk to you again.

Sumbrownkid: He obviously wrote that sentence down, mocking the fact that me and Famine were arguing again. Who is he to judge me or Famine and the discussion? If he wants to be sarcastic, he can go someplace else :/

 

[sumbrownkid]

Or he can be sarcastic and say it here, as he has every right too seeing as this conversation is just a perpetual circus with Famine getting gray hairs while constantly rebuking opinions of yours that vary from vague to outlandish.

And no, you don't see our points: Offensive words will always be there. You can't stop everyone from saying hurtful things, be it purposeful or by accident. Legislation will only make it worse.

And above the most simple and basic fact that you seem to gloss over that you, as an individual, have the power to IGNORE them and let them wallow in their ignorance.

The problem with your point is that what you are asking for (that words like gay not be used to refer to homos in a negative light) is not going to really happen with everyone on this planet, let alone on this board.

All we are saying is that speech should not be restricted just because it hurts a few people's feelings, such as how your feeling are.

Like Jay Z would say: I can't help you out I'm sorry son, but I got 99 problems and your feelings ain't one.

If Gandhi was so mindful of his feelings you think India would be free? If Martin Luther King succumbed to being called the n word and other slurs, you think he would have the balls to do what he did? No.

I was called stupid and an idiot in school when I cannot pass my Algebra class in highschool. But yet you don't see me pining about it and instead working hard at my goals to prove them wrong.

 

[Gonales]

Or he can be sarcastic and say it here, as he has every right too seeing as this conversation is just a perpetual circus with Famine getting gray hairs while constantly rebuking opinions of yours that vary from vague to outlandish.

Famine is not rebuking anything. He is just repeating himself over and over again without actually paying attention to the message I'm trying to convey.

 

[Müle]

Yes again. If you have a problem with that, don't come into the thread.

But it's the same crap that's been going on for days. Sorry for expecting anything different. I'll gladly leave and never come back just for you!

I don't mind the turn the discussion took. It's the post I reacted to, which I reacted to. Nothing else. No deeper meaning. If he can't bring anything decent forward, what is he doing here instead of trying to make someone feel worse?

How exactly am I trying to make anyone feel worse? Are you that overly-sensitive that you take everything that may or may not be directed in your vicinity as an insult? You wont get very far with that line of thinking.

Famine is not rebuking anything. He is just repeating himself over and over again without actually paying attention to the message I'm trying to convey.

Pot, kettle, black, etc.

 

[Joel]

Redacted

 

[sumbrownkid]

Famine is not rebuking anything. He is just repeating himself over and over again without actually paying attention to the message I'm trying to convey.

Rebuking is when someone counters another's opinion with their own. Which he has been forced to repeat because you are doing the same.

He's probably rubbing Tiger balm on his head to stave off that headache from this forum.

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

A thread like this thread exists? Wow.

 

[sumbrownkid]

A thread like this thread exists? Wow.

Careful you might hurt someone's feelings.

 

[Gonales]

But it's the same crap that's been going on for days. Sorry for expecting anything different. I'll gladly leave and never come back just for you!

How exactly am I trying to make anyone feel worse? Are you that overly-sensitive that you take everything that may or may not be directed in your vicinity as an insult? You wont get very far with that line of thinking.

Pot, kettle, black, etc.

Good!

Maybe you won't get far by making useless comments like those, possibly offending people which you didn't intend? :/

Careful you might hurt someone's feelings.

Oh, grow up.

A thread like this thread exists? Wow.

Yeah, why not? Do you think the answer is so clear there is no need for a chat about it?

P.S.: Like some people think, I'm not offended. Your words can be explained in both ways. Which, if people didn't assume, would be clear.

And no, you don't see our points: Offensive words will always be there. You can't stop everyone from saying hurtful things, be it purposeful or by accident. Legislation will only make it worse.

Maybe, maybe not. But I want changes made, and if they are worse, I was wrong and so be it. I don't want to sit around, knowing what people around the world have to endure because they're gay, like me.

And above the most simple and basic fact that you seem to gloss over that you, as an individual, have the power to IGNORE them and let them wallow in their ignorance.

I don't have that power. So, I will ask people to watch their language. Simple.

The problem with your point is that what you are asking for (that words like gay not be used to refer to homos in a negative light) is not going to really happen with everyone on this planet, let alone on this board.

That you don't think it can be done, doesn't mean it can't be done.

All we are saying is that speech should not be restricted just because it hurts a few people's feelings, such as how your feeling are.

A few? How about a couple of million people?

I was called stupid and an idiot in school when I cannot pass my Algebra class in highschool. But yet you don't see me pining about it and instead working hard at my goals to prove them wrong.

Gratz. You seem to forget I can't work hard to get as straight as possible... -.-

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Famine is not rebuking anything. He is just repeating himself over and over again without actually paying attention to the message I'm trying to convey.

Let me take a stab at this - the message is what, exactly?

• That people should not say things that you personally find offensive?
• That you should be able to ask people to limit their speech based on your personal opinions?
• That insulting speech is bad... but you yourself okay your own use of insulting speech (in this very thread), when you personally feel it is justified?

Did I miss anything?

Nobody is insulting your opinions. There has been a heavy amount of questioning them, thanks to a distinct lack of logic in some examples. If anybody is dismissive of others' opinions, it has been you, as you have repeatedly written others' off as "nonsense".

As for that list up there:

• People will always say things that are offensive. I'm not sure how effective typing this out will be, as Famine has said it multiple times now, but; the idea of limiting speech at any level only hurts your cause, not helps it. If you believe language should reflect your personal ideas of what's "right", than what's stopping another person from making the same demand?
• You can ask people to not use offensive terms, but, at least on GTP, it's not you who gets to define what is and isn't offensive. That's Jordan's. I'm positive you must have some basic rules in place at your house, no? If I came to visit, would it make sense that I get to dictate what the rules are?
• This one, I can't even begin to fathom. Specifically after you'd have the gall to use this:

  Simple. Basic intention of the usage.

  
  as validation.

So, some clarification?

 

[sumbrownkid]

A few? How about a couple of million people?

Gratz. You seem to forget I can't work hard to get as straight as possible... -.-

And yet are those millions of people are clamoring for censorship? No all they want is respect. Not treated like special people, but treated equally.

Sometimes jokes at your expense is one way of respect. You want to be treated equally, then you have to accept the accompanying baggage as well.

And no you being straight is not the issue, but you figuring out how to not let others make you feel bad is.

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, why not? Do you think the answer is so clear there is no need for a chat about it?

Yes, I kinda do.

 

[Gonales]

Let me take a stab at this - the message is what, exactly?

• That people should not say things that you personally find offensive?
• That you should be able to ask people to limit their speech based on your personal opinions?
• That insulting speech is bad... but you yourself okay your own use of insulting speech (in this very thread), when you personally feel it is justified?

Did I miss anything?

Nobody is insulting your opinions. There has been a heavy amount of questioning them, thanks to a distinct lack of logic in some examples. If anybody is dismissive of others' opinions, it has been you, as you have repeatedly written others' off as "nonsense".

As for that list up there:

• People will always say things that are offensive. I'm not sure how effective typing this out will be, as Famine has said it multiple times now, but; the idea of limiting speech at any level only hurts your cause, not helps it. If you believe language should reflect your personal ideas of what's "right", than what's stopping another person from making the same demand?
• You can ask people to not use offensive terms, but, at least on GTP, it's not you who gets to define what is and isn't offensive. That's Jordan's. I'm positive you must have some basic rules in place at your house, no? If I came to visit, would it make sense that I get to dictate what the rules are?
• This one, I can't even begin to fathom. Specifically after you'd have the gall to use this:
  
  as validation.

1: There should be made a list of what is considered offensive, not just personally for me.

2: No, I asked people to limit their freedom of speech from a good will, nothing more. I do think there should be legislation, but I didn't suggest it was ME making that legislation.

3: Not really, missed the nuances there. I won't insult anyone ever, on purpose. Those that do, lose my respect and all forms of polite communication. However, it's not me that insulted in the first place.

- Yes, there has been quite a bit of insulting, both ways. I do admit that. Even if others won't.
I never dismissed others opinions. On the Freedom of Speech, I agreed to disagree. But there is no arguing with Famine.

* I'm not asking people to stop using offensive terms. I asked them to stop using the words gay, and faggot in a bad way. This has nothing to do with what Jordan thinks or feels. Be aware, that this is a request, nothing more. If the response had been, even from 2 or 3 people: "We will watch our vocabulary more now you pointed this out", the goal of my post had been made. I'm not making, nor breaking rules by that post.

*Yes, if people intend and purposely use words to hurt people, like I said before, that's wrong. And people, as much as possible should point out that it is wrong. Not start talking about Freedom of Speech like they don't care.

Yes, I kinda do.

Seeing you missed the point:

In what way? Do you hate gay people and think that their existence is a sin, or do you think that everyone should be equal and the question about equality is so clearly in favor of equality for everyone that this topic makes no sense?

 

[Müle]

I won't insult anyone ever, on purpose.

Yes, there has been quite a bit of insulting, both ways. I do admit that.

hu?

 

[Gonales]

hu?

Great job in taking things out of context!

 

[sumbrownkid]

Great job in taking things out of context!

 

[Famine]

1: There should be made a list of what is considered offensive, not just personally for me.

"Everything".

That alone should give you a clue.