StarGateWars Forums

Umm, yes, there is definitely a logical argument for murder / state-controlled homicide - not saying it is a good argument, but that is what debate is for. If someone presents a clear and present danger to the life or wellness of me or my family for -any- reason the state *should* allow me to kill them. If that danger extends to the general population this responsibility falls to the state. Any state who does not do this is acting against the welfare and health of its citizens, and as such should be overthrown. It is not that complicated.
Scenario:
"Person A and B have virus XX. Virus XX has a high transmission rate and 98% mortality rate. Person A is quarantined and takes precautions. Person B refuses -and is allowed to because Civil Liberties are more important than public safety - and moves in next door to me and my family. I see if it is possible to live without exposing ourselves to our new neighbour. If this proves impossible, I will send him a note, call him or give him some other sign (like a burning biohazard sign on his lawn). If this does not have the necessary effect, I should be allowed to remove said individual on grounds that he is a health hazard to me, my family and the entire population."

If certain lifestyle choices (humping pigs, or eating live birds, for instance) gives this virus more of a chance to spread among the population, then that lifestyle choice should be persecuted with extreme prejudice.

This is not hate. This is science, reason and -maybe- a little hypochondria..



Case and point: a logical argument for murder can be made. It would be absolutely ridiculous to assume that any argument involving murder is based on hate. (Of course, the above would have no place in a regular thread, but since we are threatening the Debate Section with this restrictive noose, I consider it a relatively necessary point to make.)

Wouldn't you agree, Haz?

[spoiler]

Rudy Pena wrote:

Empy wrote:

Dovahkiin wrote:

Empy wrote:1) Change this rule to make racist statements in general (hate speech) against the rules

I absolutely oppose this option. As much as I personally dislike the anti-Islamic bigotry that is prevailing in my nation and many others, I can not allow my emotions to interfere with my judgment.

I do not like such strong, blind hatred. But I also do not like silencing debates or unpleasant opinions because they are unpleasant. I'd feel the same way if someone had say the same thing as Yellow whatever about Texans. To be honest, I think people have in the past to be honest with you.

Proud member of the Glorious Texan Master Race~ (J/K)

I agree.

I second.


Motion passes.

Idem. Though not Texan. Juliette = pure blood Aryan.[/spoiler]

Juliette wrote:Umm, yes, there is definitely a logical argument for murder / state-controlled homicide - not saying it is a good argument, but that is what debate is for. If someone presents a clear and present danger to the life or wellness of me or my family for -any- reason the state *should* allow me to kill them. If that danger extends to the general population this responsibility falls to the state. Any state who does not do this is acting against the welfare and health of its citizens, and as such should be overthrown. It is not that complicated.
Scenario:
"Person A and B have virus XX. Virus XX has a high transmission rate and 98% mortality rate. Person A is quarantined and takes precautions. Person B refuses -and is allowed to because Civil Liberties are more important than public safety - and moves in next door to me and my family. I see if it is possible to live without exposing ourselves to our new neighbour. If this proves impossible, I will send him a note, call him or give him some other sign (like a burning biohazard sign on his lawn). If this does not have the necessary effect, I should be allowed to remove said individual on grounds that he is a health hazard to me, my family and the entire population."

If certain lifestyle choices (humping pigs, or eating live birds, for instance) gives this virus more of a chance to spread among the population, then that lifestyle choice should be persecuted with extreme prejudice.

This is not hate. This is science, reason and -maybe- a little hypochondria..



Case and point: a logical argument for murder can be made. It would be absolutely ridiculous to assume that any argument involving murder is based on hate. (Of course, the above would have no place in a regular thread, but since we are threatening the Debate Section with this restrictive noose, I consider it a relatively necessary point to make.)

Wouldn't you agree, Haz?

[spoiler]

Rudy Pena wrote:

Empy wrote:

Dovahkiin wrote:

Empy wrote:1) Change this rule to make racist statements in general (hate speech) against the rules

I absolutely oppose this option. As much as I personally dislike the anti-Islamic bigotry that is prevailing in my nation and many others, I can not allow my emotions to interfere with my judgment.

I do not like such strong, blind hatred. But I also do not like silencing debates or unpleasant opinions because they are unpleasant. I'd feel the same way if someone had say the same thing as Yellow whatever about Texans. To be honest, I think people have in the past to be honest with you.

Proud member of the Glorious Texan Master Race~ (J/K)

I agree.

I second.


Motion passes.

Idem. Though not Texan. Juliette = pure blood Aryan.[/spoiler]

So here is your case of "debate/discussion". It has logic and reasoning behind it. In this case, killing is discussed under the assumption that the persons life is endangered. A far different case than "gays are a disease and should be purged", where no ones life seems to be endangered.

No hate can be seen within Juliettes post. Now look back to KMAs posts:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Being Gay is a disease, in some cases it's a disease of the mind (mental problem, need to seek counselling) and in some cases it's a disease of the body (chemical imbalance messing with the mind). in both cases the patient needs help, not marriage, and defo not a same sex partner.

You guys should know me well enough that I HATE ANY intrusion into the life of a private citizen by the state so long as said citizen has done no wrong but in this case...the state should kill them all such is my hate and contempt for these sick people...of course, the trouble with the state taking care of this problem is that the state are nearly all homo's themselves....

Conundrum or irony?! anyways, they should all seek immediate help or be put to death...PERIOD!

What endangerment does the average homosexuals impose on the general public? None!

yellow eyes wrote:Blow up all muslim that then ends half the worlds proberlems

What endangerment does the average muslim impose on the general public? None!

I do not see how either of the two posts above could be considered part of a debate. They would be deemed discriminatory and derogatory. There is no logic or reason behind it, just hatred.

Basically it sounds like "I don't like them, they should be killed, they are inferior to me"



Sound familiar?

Fantastic. But I hate person B with all my guts for endangering my children.. just forgot to mention that, fool be me. -_-

Nah, I see your point.. I just think that even irrational arguments should be allowed, after all, what is a debate without someone blowing up? Boring, that is what it is.
But I do see where you are coming from. Just disagree with the 'solution'. People hate. It is in their nature. They hate a little harder on the interweb. Meh. If you are all soft-hearted and crybabyish then why are you online? *whistles*


Look at you, with your "Exterminate", trying to exterminate feelings. Monster!

Juliette wrote:Fantastic. But I hate person B with all my guts for endangering my children.. just forgot to mention that, fool be me. -_-

Nah, I see your point.. I just think that even irrational arguments should be allowed, after all, what is a debate without someone blowing up? Boring, that is what it is.
But I do see where you are coming from. Just disagree with the 'solution'. People hate. It is in their nature. They hate a little harder on the interweb. Meh. If you are all soft-hearted and crybabyish then why are you online? *whistles*


Look at you, with your "Exterminate", trying to exterminate feelings. Monster!

There are irrational arguments that I'd still consider a part of a debate without it having to end in with "kill them ALL". The whole "gays shouldnt be allowed to marry because it ruins the meaning of marriage" would be considered that. I consider it irrational, yet not against it being part of a debate.

"Gays are a disease and should be killed" is irrational AND would be deemed as hatred as opposed to the former statements "irrational and misinformed/misunderstanding" that would commonly appear in a lot of debates.

It would be clear which one out of these two would be the worst?

There is a big difference between "Gays are a disease.." and "Being gay is a disease..", careful not to lob the two in together.
Both can be defended rationally as the first is obviously a metaphor:

Hypothetical argument - 1 wrote:"Gays are a disease" of society, nature's way of correcting overpopulation. We want more population (this is Avenger's POV as we know it from the debate section) so gays should be either cured or exterminated before they make our children believe that it is normal or cool and 'the thing to do' - and unable to reproduce.

And the second a misguided concept of brain diseases and transmission:

Hypothetical argument - 2 wrote:"Being gay is a disease" of the brain, a chemical imbalance that triggers an emotional/sexual response to imagery/forms that represent biologically incompatible individuals of the same species. Since there are more gays in a neighbourhood with an accepting attitude towards the few gay couples living in it, it is obviously infectious. I want my children to be 'normal' (or fifty shades of **Filtered** up, but not gay), so I believe they should either move, be cured, or exterminated.

Neither argument is hateful, but yes.. 'we know better', misguided and/or misinformed. Sure, the way it is presented originally makes the poster appear like one frothing at the mouth with rage-hate.. but all in all, while these arguments are sketchy and the conclusions far-fetched, it is just an opinion. Only when an opinion is treated as a weapon ("We must regulate opinion!") will it become offensive and a means for some to lobby political/social correctness and a way to give in to a worse kind of hatred - the hate of free speech.
(ref: Gov'ts 'handling' of the 'Muslim situation'.)

Some of these arguments remind us of our "solution" to the middle east conflicts...

the concept of the 'solution' wrote:No faction in the middle east appears to be able to be fully at peace with the others. It is thusly impossible to leave all factions satisfied. As such, the only solution is to leave them all unsatisfied while also gaining peace in the region.

The easiest means of attaining that peace is to remove the populace and deny them the right to live there. However, that may not work, as a significant number of them are religious fundamentalists who do not listen to reason. As such, stronger means have to be utilized to attain the peace.

Therefore, the means of acquiring that depopulation must be akin to region-wide irradiation.
Given ample warning, most of those willing to leave, would be able to do so. The remainder would be acceptable sacrifice for the cause of peace.

Once region is sufficiently irradiated, it would be impossible for anyone to live there. It would, with proper protective clothing, be possible to visit, which would then allow all the factions the chance to do so without inciting armed conflicts.

How would you fit that idea in under the hate speech regulation? It is not truly hateful, yet it would potentially result in tens of thousands of casualties. It is most certainly unethical and politically incorrect, but it is a solution that would not harm any single group more than any other group in the region.

I don't understand the referencing to criminal activity. The way I see hate speech towards a group for reasons of their religion, race etc is anything that disparages, isolates or causes prejudice against them. I wasn't questioning criminal intent but more hate speech against a group instead of an individual. I want to know if wishing to blow up all the muslims in the world is considered hatred (yes) and whether it is covered under the rules of this forum (apparently yes - but not known to all of your mods).

Question - and I know it's difficult to establish but are there any minorities currently serving on the mod team? I don't mean to sound direct and I apologise if I insult anybody but maybe your opinions are clouded by the fact that you are probably all from the Western world and aren't really in touch with other users on this forums from other communities?

I had a quick read of the couple of pages of the homophobic thread.

I do not think that KMA was trying to promote hatred, he made it very clear that it was his own personal opinion and that it isn't necessarily right. Difference between his comments and yellow wyes comment is that it was intended to insult. Albeit, it's a very small minded thought and something I don't agree with in anyway shape or form.

The only "minority" we know of on the staff would be gender-based. We do not go digging into what people believe or whether they prefer this gender or that, or stuff like that, so we can't say if there's any of such on the staff.

Zeratul wrote:The only "minority" we know of on the staff would be gender-based. We do not go digging into what people believe or whether they prefer this gender or that, or stuff like that, so we can't say if there's any of such on the staff.

Yes, minority probably wasn't the most appropriate word, but you know what I mean. I'm all for equal opportunity, but I guessed that was the case.

It does appear most of your mods are relatively open minded nevertheless.

So maybe an inappropriate comment

I am a Western woman, and I am offended by this. (But since I just said I prefer free speech over protectionism, you are forgiven.)

Juliette wrote:I am a Western woman, and I am offended by this. (But since I just said I prefer free speech over protectionism, you are forgiven.)

Luckily it's within the rules. If I had questioned you personally/individually. I would have recieved another warning

Field Marshall wrote:

Juliette wrote:I am a Western woman, and I am offended by this. (But since I just said I prefer free speech over protectionism, you are forgiven.)

Luckily it's within the rules. If I had questioned you personally/individually. I would have recieved another warning

Such protectiveness.

religious belonging, sexual preferences and such things that might stick someone in a minority do not affect how we at least judge whether someone is suitable for being on the mod team. In fact, we'd prefer a highly skilled and friendly person from such over someone of mediocre skill with the same theological/sexual preferences as the majority have.

The only kind we don't like is the kind that tries to force own beliefs upon others and is unwilling to accept that others do not believe as they do.

Zeratul wrote:religious belonging, sexual preferences and such things that might stick someone in a minority do not affect how we at least judge whether someone is suitable for being on the mod team. In fact, we'd prefer a highly skilled and friendly person from such over someone of mediocre skill with the same theological/sexual preferences as the majority have.

The only kind we don't like is the kind that tries to force own beliefs upon others and is unwilling to accept that others do not believe as they do.

Nice traits, I'm not questioning that. Was just curious, because at first face value, I would guess that the vast majority of people on the mod team are (mod me if I am wrong - I'm not as smart as others here) caucasian origin. Nothing needing investigating.

New question, is calling somebody a derogatory term because of their cultural background a rule breaker.

Fundamentally, for the reason of this thread only. Calling somebody a "queer".

- The use of this word would usually be avoided by myself, but for the clarity of the rules. This is the word that from herein will be labelled "cuddly".

im gunna say this one more time i didnt say blow up all Muslims i said blow up the Muslim country's . i dont have a problem with the relgion just half the leaders in the eastern world